Watered-Down “Conservatives”

By Vanishing American

[...]

Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan - California, 1964.

[Are not] conservatives the ones who claim to ensure stability, continuity, tradition, respect for the past? Or,  have they long since dropped all pretense to any of the time-honored definitions of ‘conservatism‘?

To all those ‘conservatives‘ who are up on their high horses condemning not only John Derbyshire, but anyone who remotely agrees with him, or defends his right to speak truth: defend yourselves and your ‘conservatism‘… or else, drop the label and call yourselves something more appropriate.

How does it come to be that the ‘conservative‘ of today takes an entirely opposite view on certain vital matters to those held by his parents, grandparents and the generations before them?

I think many of these ‘conservatives‘, the ones calling Internet commentators ‘the scum of the earth‘ are superannuated ‘adultlescents‘.  For them, history did not begin until the first Bush administration, circa 1988, hence they don’t remember what happened when the sainted ‘Father of our Country‘, MLK, was nominated to have a national holiday in his honor.

The fact  is, many Republicans resisted that idea, and did so vociferously. If you are old enough, and have read something besides politically corrected ‘history’, you will know that to be true, though the story is being sent down the p.c. memory hole.  Ronald Reagan himself, at first, objected, as did some Republicans in Congress. The latter-day fawning over MLK, the excessive adulation devoted to ‘black conservatives‘, this is all relatively recent history. The wholesale adoption of the liberal views on such things is a very recent phenomenon. And now we have Glenn Beck honoring the ‘black Founding Fathers.’ What!?

[Read something about the real Founding Fathers: 56 Men of Conviction]

The Civil Rights era did constitute a social revolution. The conservatives of earlier generations, imperfect though they were, realized that. They remembered a time when the dominant attitudes on racial issues were ones that have since become all but outlawed, made [into] thought-crimes.

Once, conservatives did not try to distance themselves from ‘old America‘ on racial matters, and did not feel compelled to look down on their parents and grandparents’ ideas and beliefs and life choices. Nowadays, those who call themselves ‘conservatives‘ are embracing ideas that, even within my lifetime were once considered ‘radical’ and have proven to be revolutionary ideas.  And espousing these once-fringe ideas is ”conservative” in what sense?

Nobody with any knowledge of history can deny that our society was turned upside down, starting during the mid-50s and continuing in earnest to this day. How is it that today’s conservatives would not be recognized as such by their parents or grandparents?

Unless your elders were all closet Communists, they did not hold politically correct (p.c.) ideas about race. Their views were likely to have been more similar, whether they came from the North or the South, to the so-called ”far right” than to those of the weak-as-water, PC Republicans of today. The Republicans have veered sharply to the left, as has what we laughingly call ‘conservatism.’

How is it that a conservative can reject the ways and the thoughts of previous generations, while embracing the radical innovations (Anti-White policies like A.A., educational follies like ‘No Child Left Behind’, gay marriage, women in the military, pro-abortion, etc.) of the counterculture?

Justify yourselves, ”conservatives.” You can’t, without distancing yourself from your ancestors, and from the very Founders of this country, whom you claim to revere.  …continue to Full Article

RON PAUL Slated For “Removal”?

By Alan Stang

Warning! As you know, I always give you my best jokes in these pieces. This one will contain no humor. Will the conspiracy for world government assassinate Dr. Paul? That is the stark question now before us. Since the Paul campaign started to take off, I have been hearing agonized comments to that effect from his supporters. So far, I have said nothing, hoping they would subside, but now comes an authentic reporter citing “reliable sources” from inside.

He is Daniel Estulin, an author who lives in Spain, and whose welcome, new exposé is The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (Walterville, OR, Trine Day, 2007). The Bilderbergers meet at least once a year. Somewhere in the world, they take over a five-star establishment, kick all the other guests out, surround the place with guards armed with machine guns and meet in secret, where they decide what will happen to you and your property, which you have not elected them to do.

Estulin apparently has a good record for accuracy. He says that sources in a think tank in U.S. intelligence tell him that people at the top of the U.S. government are considering the execution of Dr. Ron Paul, whose exploding popularity is causing them to fear they could lose control. Recently, he became the 18 Million Dollar Man, after people around the country raised more than $6 million for his campaign in one day, a gargantuan record.

Estulin told commentator Alex Jones: “I am getting information from my sources that there are people involved from a higher level of the American establishment who are seriously considering – this has not been confirmed – but assassination is definitely on the agenda and I pray to God that this is not the case.” Estulin says his source has been accurate for ten years, and says that if the “Ron Paul Revolution” continues to multiply, assassination could be a “serious option.”

Needless to say, the utterly genteel lunatics who operate at that height in Washington do not use words like “assassinate” or “execute.” Certainly, they would never breathe the word “kill,” a word that has hair on it. They talk about the possibility of “removing” Dr. Paul, who is perfectly aware that assassination is a favorite technique of the conspiracy for world government. “If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em,” becomes “If you can’t lick ‘em, kill ‘em,” in the lexicon of world government.

Andy Jackson opposed the National Bank and someone tried to shoot him in the Capitol Rotunda. President James Garfield talked too much about money backed by gold and was assassinated. Huey Long, the “Kingfish,” opposed serial killer Franklin Roosevelt. He too was assassinated. Arthur Bremer stepped out of a crowd with a handgun and crippled George Wallace. John Hinckley, Jr. stepped out of a crowd with a handgun and shot Ronald Reagan. Of course, these are just a few examples.

Later, we are told that most of the assassins are demented. Richard Lawrence, who tried to kill Andy, told interrogators he was Richard III. Hinckley said he tried to kill Reagan to win the love of actress Jodie Foster. No doubt Hinckley would have been disillusioned and maybe would not have done it had he known that Jodie Foster is a dyke. Often the perpetrators leave an incriminating diary behind.

In the Soviet Union (which regular readers know never did collapse) there are literal schools of assassination. They teach how to kill an enemy by running him down with a truck. Was that what happened to General Patton? They teach how to kill a man with cyanide. The killer walks past him with a rolled up newspaper under his arm. When they come abreast, he puts the newspaper to his lips like a funnel and blows cyanide crystals into the target’s face. The crystals do their job and dissipate. When the doctors examine the corpse, all they can determine is that he had a fatal heart attack.

Defenestration is another favorite technique. The target is simply thrown out a window, which in German is a “Fenster.” The Soviets did that in 1948 to Jan Masaryk, who stood in the way of their conquest of Czechoslovakia. That is what happened to Secretary of Defense James Forrestal who could have done much to stop the Reds. He “committed suicide” in 1949 by tying the sash of his robe around his neck and “jumping out” a 16th floor window of Bethesda Naval Hospital. Investigators found broken glass on his bed.

So it would be a very easy matter to assassinate Dr. No. His campaign threatens literally everything the conspiracy for world government is doing. Logic tells us that the conspirators will refuse to let one mild, avuncular doctor derail them when they are so close, which now becomes realistic to discuss. Ron loves to mix among his people. It would be very easy to inspire a nutbag who thinks he is Sitting Bull or Joan of Arc to step out of a crowd with a diary in one hand and a .38 in the other, and blow him away with his campaign. >> more HERE

ALSO READ:

“Freedom” You Say?

U.S. Empire In Decline

New World Order Plans For US

Blueprint For The New World Order

Mass Media: Smoke & Mirrors

Pawns In The Game

Understanding The System

Ron Paul On Immigration

Stop This Tyranny