Democrat Version of "I Love America"

[Toronado3800]

You never answered and notice it was a question.

I'm sorry for asking you a question your masters have not provided you an answer for?

If I would have known free thought would risk removal of your typing fingers by Rush or Ann or Vlad or Adolf or whoever I would not have asked.

Let me know if you ever can hust say how you would have conducted the war. I know having an opinion makes you open to criticism but here, thats ok.

Here......the answer for the second time, you dunce.


1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


2. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt (Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936.) warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalinthat formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.'

He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"




BTW, stupid....FDR was just fine with Hitler's take-over in Europe.

At the Munich conference where Europe sold out Czechoslovakia, even though France had a treaty to go to war to preserve Czechoslovakia…..Chamberlain was about to appease Hitler….and FDR sent this message to Chamberlain:


"MUNICH MESSAGE FROM U.S. BARED; Roosevelt Sent Encouraging 'Good Man' to Chamberlain Day Before Conference"
MUNICH MESSAGE FROM U.S. BARED; Roosevelt Sent Encouraging 'Good Man' to Chamberlain Day Before Conference




I'm not showing off how much I know....

....just rubbing your face in how little you know.

This is like a word game lol.

Does you typing or pasting in: "1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106."

mean you don't think we should have declared war on the Germans in 1941?

Please, answer in your words. Say it, be brave. You are an equal person. You are an adult. Say what you think, no more hiding under a veil.

Get lost until you can show the proper respect for education.

Who said anything about education? I asked you for your opinion.

FWIW, I'm not into group think either. Be it questioning the liberal institutions or the conservative think tanks, our jobs as adults is to read theories on global warming or about natural climate change and combine the conflicting science from educated people into opinions. Our trophy wife hunter in chief apparently does it during this fast 15 minute meetings where he tells ppl to make their case and then he decides.

Heck, in a way I asked if I understood what you typed. If you are embarrassed to clarify, I'll help you.

Here is an "embarrassing" opinion of mine that isn't politically correct. If I were President in 1866, 1876 or 1886, I'm not sure what the heck I could have done to help the Native Americans out. Finishing up the conquest of the continent was obviously the "right" strategic move but man, I'm not comfortable with the situation. Hopefully I could have talked some Natives into forming Salt Lake City II someplace like the Mormons did. Even that didn't go entirely well.

So yeah, sometimes ppl are going to say, "Great, you criticized this, that or them. Given your education and even a bit of hindsight, what would you have done?"

So, in 1941, you would or would not have declared war on Germany?

Everything I post is my opinion, dunce.

Posts are carefully constructed to support same, using the testimony of experts.

You, on the other hand, lie.

The effect is you are hiding behind someone else's quote so you don't have to say what you would or would have done. That way you have made no decision and can't be wrong.

 

[deanrd]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

The Democrats version of I love America doesn’t start with the swastika and white power. Something that really must bum you out.

 

[captkaos]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

Supreme court Justices are Sworn to Abide by the Constitution. The Left (Ginsburg) and a dwindling minority on the Court are quite welcome to go and "RULE" somewhere else. The Left needs the "Court" to legitimize their Progressive, Liberal, Socialist ideology, Always have always will it's the only direct way to take A Government of the People , by The People and For The people away from the People.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here......the answer for the second time, you dunce.


1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


2. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt (Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936.) warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalinthat formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.'

He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"




BTW, stupid....FDR was just fine with Hitler's take-over in Europe.

At the Munich conference where Europe sold out Czechoslovakia, even though France had a treaty to go to war to preserve Czechoslovakia…..Chamberlain was about to appease Hitler….and FDR sent this message to Chamberlain:


"MUNICH MESSAGE FROM U.S. BARED; Roosevelt Sent Encouraging 'Good Man' to Chamberlain Day Before Conference"
MUNICH MESSAGE FROM U.S. BARED; Roosevelt Sent Encouraging 'Good Man' to Chamberlain Day Before Conference




I'm not showing off how much I know....

....just rubbing your face in how little you know.

This is like a word game lol.

Does you typing or pasting in: "1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106."

mean you don't think we should have declared war on the Germans in 1941?

Please, answer in your words. Say it, be brave. You are an equal person. You are an adult. Say what you think, no more hiding under a veil.

Get lost until you can show the proper respect for education.

Who said anything about education? I asked you for your opinion.

FWIW, I'm not into group think either. Be it questioning the liberal institutions or the conservative think tanks, our jobs as adults is to read theories on global warming or about natural climate change and combine the conflicting science from educated people into opinions. Our trophy wife hunter in chief apparently does it during this fast 15 minute meetings where he tells ppl to make their case and then he decides.

Heck, in a way I asked if I understood what you typed. If you are embarrassed to clarify, I'll help you.

Here is an "embarrassing" opinion of mine that isn't politically correct. If I were President in 1866, 1876 or 1886, I'm not sure what the heck I could have done to help the Native Americans out. Finishing up the conquest of the continent was obviously the "right" strategic move but man, I'm not comfortable with the situation. Hopefully I could have talked some Natives into forming Salt Lake City II someplace like the Mormons did. Even that didn't go entirely well.

So yeah, sometimes ppl are going to say, "Great, you criticized this, that or them. Given your education and even a bit of hindsight, what would you have done?"

So, in 1941, you would or would not have declared war on Germany?

Everything I post is my opinion, dunce.

Posts are carefully constructed to support same, using the testimony of experts.

You, on the other hand, lie.

The effect is you are hiding behind someone else's quote so you don't have to say what you would or would have done. That way you have made no decision and can't be wrong.

You've been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War, and now are making both excuses and now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans. Losers do not make demands. They make requests. They make pleas.


Time for you to admit that I've schooled you, and your tap-dance is the attempt to hide it.

 

[Toronado3800]

This is like a word game lol.

Does you typing or pasting in: "1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106."

mean you don't think we should have declared war on the Germans in 1941?

Please, answer in your words. Say it, be brave. You are an equal person. You are an adult. Say what you think, no more hiding under a veil.

Get lost until you can show the proper respect for education.

Who said anything about education? I asked you for your opinion.

FWIW, I'm not into group think either. Be it questioning the liberal institutions or the conservative think tanks, our jobs as adults is to read theories on global warming or about natural climate change and combine the conflicting science from educated people into opinions. Our trophy wife hunter in chief apparently does it during this fast 15 minute meetings where he tells ppl to make their case and then he decides.

Heck, in a way I asked if I understood what you typed. If you are embarrassed to clarify, I'll help you.

Here is an "embarrassing" opinion of mine that isn't politically correct. If I were President in 1866, 1876 or 1886, I'm not sure what the heck I could have done to help the Native Americans out. Finishing up the conquest of the continent was obviously the "right" strategic move but man, I'm not comfortable with the situation. Hopefully I could have talked some Natives into forming Salt Lake City II someplace like the Mormons did. Even that didn't go entirely well.

So yeah, sometimes ppl are going to say, "Great, you criticized this, that or them. Given your education and even a bit of hindsight, what would you have done?"

So, in 1941, you would or would not have declared war on Germany?

Everything I post is my opinion, dunce.

Posts are carefully constructed to support same, using the testimony of experts.

You, on the other hand, lie.

The effect is you are hiding behind someone else's quote so you don't have to say what you would or would have done. That way you have made no decision and can't be wrong.

You've been beaten as badly as Carthage in the Third Punic War, and now are making both excuses and now making demands on Scipio Africanus and the victorious Romans. Losers do not make demands. They make requests. They make pleas.


Time for you to admit that I've schooled you, and your tap-dance is the attempt to hide it.

PC, don't just become a name calling snowflake offended because I didn't cower to some quote, I was told not to defer to the liberal elite education system after all. Be brave, say how you would have conducted the second war in Europe. Or I suppose not have conducted it. Isolationists who fought in the trenches just 20 years earlier aren't total fools ya know.

Calling someone names doesn't mean you win.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

The Democrats version of I love America doesn’t start with the swastika and white power. Something that really must bum you out.

"......swastika ..."


The group that used that symbol were as Left as today's Liberals/Democrats, and stood for the very same programs.

Let's prove it together:

. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?



Workers Welfare Programs:

In the best passage of Government largess, the Nazi regime fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens across all segments of society. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way.

a) Highly Subsidized International vacation trips.

b) Between 1933-1938 Strength through Joy (KDF) movement Organized 134,000 theater and concert events for 32 million people. 2 million people went on cruises and weekend trips and 11 million went on theater trips.

c) Nazis ensured that every citizen had a Radio.

d) 5 day week.

e) Free Public Health.

f) Trade Unions were banned. All workers had to join German labor Front. Strikes for higher wages were banned. People who refused to work were imprisoned. With fall in Inflation, purchasing power increased and wages actually fell.

g) Large factories had to provide rest areas, cafeterias, dressing rooms, even playing fields and swimming pools

h) They also banned "lock outs" for industries. No "reverse strikes"for them either.

LIES YOUR TEACHER TAUGHT YOU: Nazi Hitler Economic Social and Political Policies



See what you've learned today?




And....Nazis were as violent as Liberals are on the streets today.

 

[captkaos]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

The Democrats version of I love America doesn’t start with the swastika and white power. Something that really must bum you out.

You are absolutely correct! The Dem version begins with the assault on anyone in opposition to your Ideology, Then comes Infiltration of the News Media ( Gotta have Propaganda). Then come the attack on individual freedoms through control of the courts , and then come the Swastikas!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

Supreme court Justices are Sworn to Abide by the Constitution. The Left (Ginsburg) and a dwindling minority on the Court are quite welcome to go and "RULE" somewhere else. The Left needs the "Court" to legitimize their Progressive, Liberal, Socialist ideology, Always have always will it's the only direct way to take A Government of the People , by The People and For The people away from the People.

Compare the Liberal Brennan's idea that judges know what is best, no matter what the law says, to Chief Justice Robert's at this nomination:



"WASHINGTON — Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an “obligation to the Constitution” and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.

“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.”
Roberts says he's not an ideologue - US news - The Changing Court | NBC News

 

[PoliticalChic]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

The Democrats version of I love America doesn’t start with the swastika and white power. Something that really must bum you out.

Did I mention that Nazis were, essentially, Liberals???

During the 12 years of Hitler’s Third Reich, the National Socialists expanded and extended the welfare state to the point where over 17 million German citizens were receiving assistance under the auspices of the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) by 1939, an agency that had projected a powerful image of caring and support. Welfare state - Wikipedia




The Nazi rule under Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s led to an improvement in medical care and old age provision largely financed by high taxes on the wealthy, and theft from Jews and the people of the conquered territories (Aly 2007, 7). The Viability of the European Social Model: The German Welfare State and Labor Market Reform

 

[PoliticalChic]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

The Democrats version of I love America doesn’t start with the swastika and white power. Something that really must bum you out.

Did I mention that the Nazis actually gave credit to the Progressives and Democrats for their policies???


1. First, the Nazis copied the Progressives/Democrats Immigration Policies.

Only the ‘right races’ welcomed.

“Progressives opposed immigration and enacted several immigration restrictions during the 1920s. Progressives also tried to force immigrants to adopt Progressive moral beliefs.” Progressive Movement - Ohio History Central

And… Immigrant Restrictions During the Progressive Era | Synonym

Hitler lauded the Progressives’ immigration policies.

“By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain racesfrom naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the folkish state concept.”
“Mein Kampf,” chapter three



“Hitler also appealed to the racially exclusionary provisions of U.S. immigration laws, specifically the 1924 Immigration Act that had been pushed by American progressives as a model of enlightened eugenic legislation. “There is today one state,” Hitler noted, “in which at least weak beginning toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course it is not our German Republic but the American union. By refusing immigration on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalization, it professes in slow beginnings a view which is peculiar to the Volkish state concept.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

How about Franklin Roosevelt's attitude toward other races....?
"This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR's views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular.... He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had "blood of the right sort." FDR's troubling view of Jews

Sieg Heil, Franklin????



2. Know what else the Nazis learned from the Progressives/Democrats?

“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.

Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race

“The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
Adolph Hitler
Untitled Document


“At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats



4. The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.

In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’


“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats


From the LATimes:

“At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American [Democrat] jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes




Proud to be a Nazis...er, a Democrat????

 

[captkaos]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

Roosevelt forced the US to war in 1941 because the Russians were Getting their asses handed to them Roosevelt was a Liberal / Socialist President
and his Comrade (Stalin) needed a Second front to Keep himself in Power and the Communist dream alive. So FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to Occur. Is it coincidence that Not a Single Aircraft carrier was in Pearl Harbor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

Roosevelt forced the US to war in 1941 because the Russians were Getting their asses handed to them Roosevelt was a Liberal / Socialist President
and his Comrade (Stalin) needed a Second front to Keep himself in Power and the Communist dream alive. So FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to Occur. Is it coincidence that Not a Single Aircraft carrier was in Pearl Harbor.

I haven't been able to nail down whether FDR allowed Pearl Harbor, but here's a similar unrecognized situation...
Stalin was beloved by FDR....but far smarted than FDR.

And FDR didn't care who he threw under the bus.


In 1995, Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow,"the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.

a. In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."


b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to meet with Soviet spy Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.


Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,

Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.

Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
[Operation Snow http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/]




c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated.

Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.

Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News


Connect those dots!
Stalin had spies in every important nation.
In America they controlled Roosevelt,and the nation's foreign policy.

Evidence indicates that he did the same in Japan....
...and the result was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

[captkaos]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

Roosevelt forced the US to war in 1941 because the Russians were Getting their asses handed to them Roosevelt was a Liberal / Socialist President
and his Comrade (Stalin) needed a Second front to Keep himself in Power and the Communist dream alive. So FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to Occur. Is it coincidence that Not a Single Aircraft carrier was in Pearl Harbor.

I haven't been able to nail down whether FDR allowed Pearl Harbor, but here's a similar unrecognized situation...
Stalin was beloved by FDR....but far smarted than FDR.

And FDR didn't care who he threw under the bus.


In 1995,Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow,"the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.

a. In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."


b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to meet with Soviet spy Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.


Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,

Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.

Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
[Operation Snow http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/]




c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated.

Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.

Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News


Connect those dots!
Stalin had spies in every important nation.
In America they controlled Roosevelt,and the nation's foreign policy.

Evidence indicates that he did the same in Japan....
...and the result was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Well stated! Stalin not Roosevelt was controlling the outcome of the war and where it would be conducted other Socialists like FDR fell right in line

 

[PoliticalChic]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

Roosevelt forced the US to war in 1941 because the Russians were Getting their asses handed to them Roosevelt was a Liberal / Socialist President
and his Comrade (Stalin) needed a Second front to Keep himself in Power and the Communist dream alive. So FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to Occur. Is it coincidence that Not a Single Aircraft carrier was in Pearl Harbor.

I haven't been able to nail down whether FDR allowed Pearl Harbor, but here's a similar unrecognized situation...
Stalin was beloved by FDR....but far smarted than FDR.

And FDR didn't care who he threw under the bus.


In 1995,Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow,"the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.

a. In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."


b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to meet with Soviet spy Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.


Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,

Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.

Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
[Operation Snow http://nation.time.com/2012/12/07/pearl-harbor-2-0/]




c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated.

Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.

Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America."
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News


Connect those dots!
Stalin had spies in every important nation.
In America they controlled Roosevelt,and the nation's foreign policy.

Evidence indicates that he did the same in Japan....
...and the result was the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Well stated! Stalin not Roosevelt was controlling the outcome of the war and where it would be conducted other Socialists like FDR fell right in line

See if this changes your mind about Pearl Harbor and FDR....

Robert Stripling served ten years (1938-1948) as Chief Investigator of the bipartisan House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

" Congress had created the Committee in the 1930s to publicly gather information on, primarily, American Nazis, Klansmen, and other homegrown fascists. Only later, as Communism's wide scope and insidious nature became apparent, did HUAC set out to expose the vast leftwing conspiracy of its American operations, a conspiracy propagated by both card-carrying members and fellow-traveling sympathizers... the committee itself was predominately made up of democrats.."
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Plot-Agai...d=1428764868&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+stripling



In Stripling's memoir, written in 1949 and republished in 2010, he provides this interesting insight: Stalin's spies did not want to allow Americans to be made aware of possible attack by Japan because the uproar might dissuade the Japanese from doing so!

Get that? More proof that communist sympathizers were un-American: they sacrificed 3000 Americans at Pearl Harbor.
And which side was Roosevelt on? He promoted Soviet spies in his administration.


Stripling wrote that the acting attorney-general informed Rep. Martin Dies that after discussing the question with the President and Secretary Hull "he was denying permission to the House Committee on UN-American Activities to hold hearings on Japanese spying on the Pacific Coast and in Hawaii."


In effect, furthering the Soviet plot to push Japan and America toward war.


"For the remainder of my life, I will always believe that our disclosures would have aroused enough alarm among our people to have caused the Japanese to abandon their planned attack on Pearl Harbor."
"The Red Plot Against America,"by Robert E. Stripling, p. 35-36

But Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't allow hearings....



"Moscow, of course, urgently needed the Pearl Harbor attack to succeed."
Peter Niblo, "Influence," p. 75.

So....FDR, as well.

 

[francoHFW]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

How Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march.

"...Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march."



Watch this:

Rule #1Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


Your post......link or lie?




See what I did there.....I made you useful.

Funny how the only people in the whole world who agree with you nut jobs is the GOP b*******propaganda machine...

Soooo....you were unable provide any link to your slander?

It was simply a lie?

I win again, huh?

Pick a fact we disagree on and Google it stupid. Start withwith anything you know about Hillary Obama the foundation etc etc.

 

[deanrd]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

Your kind loves white people only.
Oops, made a mistake.
Your kind loves RICH white people only.

Democrats love everyone.

Thank God I'm a Democrat.

 

[deanrd]

How Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march.

.............................

What do you mean link, dum dum?
How many times has Trump's military parade been reported nitwit.
Oh, here dunce, if you insist:

Trump’s military parade will be “tremendously expensive,” by Trump’s standard.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They love America.....sure they do.

But.....just to be sure, let's check:



"Democrats’ campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices"
Democrats' campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court is an attempt to intimidate the Justices


"Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats."
Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats.


"The Senate is undemocratic and it matters"
The Senate is undemocratic and it matters



"Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” | National Review




And....where it started....

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.

How Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march.

"...Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march."



Watch this:

Rule #1Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


Your post......link or lie?




See what I did there.....I made you useful.

Funny how the only people in the whole world who agree with you nut jobs is the GOP b*******propaganda machine...

Soooo....you were unable provide any link to your slander?

It was simply a lie?

I win again, huh?

Pick a fact we disagree on and Google it stupid. Start withwith anything you know about Hillary Obama the foundation etc etc.

"Pick a fact we disagree on and Google it stupid. Start withwith anything you know about Hillary Obama the foundation etc etc"

Sure thing, blanko.....




Hillary Clinton made sweeping promises about transparency at her family’s foundation before she was confirmed in 2009 as President Obama’s secretary of State.

During her confirmation hearing, the Clinton Foundation was mentioned 62 times as senators worried that foreign governments could use donations to the foundation to curry favor with the Clinton State Department.

Clinton said at the hearing that “all contributors will be disclosed,”….

…transparency promises ended up not being kept.

1. The Clinton Health Access Initiative didn’t disclose its donors annually.

2. The Clinton Health Access Initiative didn’t submit foreign government donations to State Department ethics officials for review.

3. The Clinton Foundation didn’t disclose a new $500,000 donation in 2010 from the Algerian government

4. The Clinton Foundation didn’t disclose $2.35 million of donations from a family foundation linked to a company with business before Clinton's State Department.

5. The Clinton Foundation was late in disclosing millions of dollars in speaking fees.

6. The Clinton Foundation hasn’t revealed all of the sources of money transferred from a Canadian charity.

7. Exact donation amounts and dates are unknown. Seven ways the Clinton Foundation failed to meet its transparency promises

===============================================

Evidence has been revealed that as money was donated to the Clinton Foundation, donors were forced to steer funds directly to Bill Clinton.

“… top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band … was a central player at the Clinton Foundation…

… Band also detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.

The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.” Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income




“Memo reveals interplay between Clinton Foundation, personal business

An internal memo released Wednesday by WikiLeaks reveals new details about the interplay between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family’s personal business interests.

…Band describes his “unorthodox” role in raising money for the nonprofit foundation while simultaneously securing for-profit opportunities for the former president.

Questions about the overlapping interests between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ personal business interests have dogged Hillary Clinton…

…..allegations of “pay-for-play,” accusing the former secretary of State of selling access to corporations and foreign governments that make donations to the Clinton Foundation or have paid her and Bill Clinton for private speeches.

In a previous email to Podesta, who was then acting as the temporary CEO of the foundation, Band worried that the press might catch wind of his role in Clinton World and misconstrue it.

“I'm starting to worry that if this story gets out, we are screwed,”…” Memo reveals interplay between Clinton Foundation, personal business




Did I just rip you a new one.......again?????

 

[francoHFW]

How Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march.

"...Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march."



Watch this:

Rule #1Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


Your post......link or lie?




See what I did there.....I made you useful.

Funny how the only people in the whole world who agree with you nut jobs is the GOP b*******propaganda machine...

Soooo....you were unable provide any link to your slander?

It was simply a lie?

I win again, huh?

Pick a fact we disagree on and Google it stupid. Start withwith anything you know about Hillary Obama the foundation etc etc.

"Pick a fact we disagree on and Google it stupid. Start withwith anything you know about Hillary Obama the foundation etc etc"

Sure thing, blanko.....




Hillary Clinton made sweeping promises about transparency at her family’s foundation before she was confirmed in 2009 as President Obama’s secretary of State.

During her confirmation hearing, the Clinton Foundation was mentioned 62 times as senators worried that foreign governments could use donations to the foundation to curry favor with the Clinton State Department.

Clinton said at the hearing that “all contributors will be disclosed,”….

…transparency promises ended up not being kept.

1. The Clinton Health Access Initiative didn’t disclose its donors annually.

2. The Clinton Health Access Initiative didn’t submit foreign government donations to State Department ethics officials for review.

3. The Clinton Foundation didn’t disclose a new $500,000 donation in 2010 from the Algerian government

4. The Clinton Foundation didn’t disclose $2.35 million of donations from a family foundation linked to a company with business before Clinton's State Department.

5. The Clinton Foundation was late in disclosing millions of dollars in speaking fees.

6. The Clinton Foundation hasn’t revealed all of the sources of money transferred from a Canadian charity.

7. Exact donation amounts and dates are unknown. Seven ways the Clinton Foundation failed to meet its transparency promises

===============================================

Evidence has been revealed that as money was donated to the Clinton Foundation, donors were forced to steer funds directly to Bill Clinton.

“… top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band … was a central player at the Clinton Foundation…

… Band also detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.

The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.” Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income




“Memo reveals interplay between Clinton Foundation, personal business

An internal memo released Wednesday by WikiLeaks reveals new details about the interplay between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family’s personal business interests.

…Band describes his “unorthodox” role in raising money for the nonprofit foundation while simultaneously securing for-profit opportunities for the former president.

Questions about the overlapping interests between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ personal business interests have dogged Hillary Clinton…

…..allegations of “pay-for-play,” accusing the former secretary of State of selling access to corporations and foreign governments that make donations to the Clinton Foundation or have paid her and Bill Clinton for private speeches.

In a previous email to Podesta, who was then acting as the temporary CEO of the foundation, Band worried that the press might catch wind of his role in Clinton World and misconstrue it.

“I'm starting to worry that if this story gets out, we are screwed,”…” Memo reveals interplay between Clinton Foundation, personal business




Did I just rip you a new one.......again?????

All investigated, nothing illegal. People just continue to pay the clintons for speeches and books. Horrible, just horrible, super duper...zzzzzzzzz z

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...Trump and his supporters want American soldiers to march."



Watch this:

Rule #1Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


Your post......link or lie?




See what I did there.....I made you useful.

Funny how the only people in the whole world who agree with you nut jobs is the GOP b*******propaganda machine...

Soooo....you were unable provide any link to your slander?

It was simply a lie?

I win again, huh?

Pick a fact we disagree on and Google it stupid. Start withwith anything you know about Hillary Obama the foundation etc etc.

"Pick a fact we disagree on and Google it stupid. Start withwith anything you know about Hillary Obama the foundation etc etc"

Sure thing, blanko.....




Hillary Clinton made sweeping promises about transparency at her family’s foundation before she was confirmed in 2009 as President Obama’s secretary of State.

During her confirmation hearing, the Clinton Foundation was mentioned 62 times as senators worried that foreign governments could use donations to the foundation to curry favor with the Clinton State Department.

Clinton said at the hearing that “all contributors will be disclosed,”….

…transparency promises ended up not being kept.

1. The Clinton Health Access Initiative didn’t disclose its donors annually.

2. The Clinton Health Access Initiative didn’t submit foreign government donations to State Department ethics officials for review.

3. The Clinton Foundation didn’t disclose a new $500,000 donation in 2010 from the Algerian government

4. The Clinton Foundation didn’t disclose $2.35 million of donations from a family foundation linked to a company with business before Clinton's State Department.

5. The Clinton Foundation was late in disclosing millions of dollars in speaking fees.

6. The Clinton Foundation hasn’t revealed all of the sources of money transferred from a Canadian charity.

7. Exact donation amounts and dates are unknown. Seven ways the Clinton Foundation failed to meet its transparency promises

===============================================

Evidence has been revealed that as money was donated to the Clinton Foundation, donors were forced to steer funds directly to Bill Clinton.

“… top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band … was a central player at the Clinton Foundation…

… Band also detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.

The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.” Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income




“Memo reveals interplay between Clinton Foundation, personal business

An internal memo released Wednesday by WikiLeaks reveals new details about the interplay between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family’s personal business interests.

…Band describes his “unorthodox” role in raising money for the nonprofit foundation while simultaneously securing for-profit opportunities for the former president.

Questions about the overlapping interests between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ personal business interests have dogged Hillary Clinton…

…..allegations of “pay-for-play,” accusing the former secretary of State of selling access to corporations and foreign governments that make donations to the Clinton Foundation or have paid her and Bill Clinton for private speeches.

In a previous email to Podesta, who was then acting as the temporary CEO of the foundation, Band worried that the press might catch wind of his role in Clinton World and misconstrue it.

“I'm starting to worry that if this story gets out, we are screwed,”…” Memo reveals interplay between Clinton Foundation, personal business




Did I just rip you a new one.......again?????

All investigated, nothing illegal. People just continue to pay the clintons for speeches and books. Horrible, just horrible, super duper...zzzzzzzzz z

WHAT????


Another beating for blanko??????


Sure thing.....


Once Hillary could no longer provide the ‘influence’ and had no future ability to do so…..guess what happened to the bribes….er, ‘donations.’


“The Clinton Foundation was little more than an influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity," either overseas or in the U.S.

…the Clinton Foundationmade a major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it's closing its doors.

In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.”

The Clinton Foundation Is Dead — But The Case Against Hillary Isn't | Investor's Business Daily






“Donations to the Clinton Foundation nose-dived last year amid Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, pay-to-play allegations, internal strife and a black mark from a charity watchdog.

Contributions fell by 37 percent to $108 million, down from $172 million in 2014, according to the group’s latest tax filings.

Not only did contributions drop, but so did revenue the Clintons brought in from speeches. That income fell to $357,500 from $3.6 million in 2014.” https://nypost.com/2016/11/20/donations-to-clinton-foundation-fell-by-37-percent/




And...pay-to-play is illegal, you dope.