Founders’ Original Intent – Guest Post

January 29, 2009 by The Constant Complainer

Welcome to the award winning blog of The Constant Complainer.  Here at The Constant Complainer, in addition to my own posts, readers can submit Guest Posts on topics they would like to complain about.  The below-Guest Post was submitted by Neo Con Don.  His complaint, how he explained it to me, is people’s refusal to recognize the importance of our founder’s intent.  This is a deep topic and a longer post, but an easy read.  If politics don’t interest you, there are plenty of other posts to choose from on this site.  Enjoy and without further adieu, here’s Don…

The Communist Goals of 1963 number 29, 30, and 31 read as follows:

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

I’m bringing up the communist goals to help people understand why liberals might believe what the communists believe. It is very possible that any of us that were in public school beginning with Lyndon Johnson’s term have been taught these goals as fact, or read them in a newspaper every day.  If you’re an active reader of this blog, you’ll note that I am regularly bringing up the idea of founder’s intent and our duty to recognize it.  You’ll also notice that other readers respond with answers directly from the communist play book.  Several exchanges occurred in my column, The War on Christmas.  In Mikes comment posted Dec. 9th at 10:27am, he describes his love for European history because of the religious study associated with it, but then says the only religious significance in our history is the story of the Puritans. This is an example of the success of Communist Goal Number 31. Later, in a response posted on Dec. 9th at 3:58pm, Mike opines that he “hates the ‘founding father’s’ argument.  It’s not the same era and a country has to change with the times or else it is doomed to fail.  You have to adapt with new ideas.”  This is a classic example of Communist Goals Number 29 and 30. The premise of the founders is what has kept this country together for so long.  The attempt to change those premises is what will, and might be causing, the eventual failure of our republic.  I certainly don’t think Mike is a communist, and I have no idea how old he is or when he went to school or what newspapers he reads, but it’s possible that Mike is a victim of a liberal fascist agenda.  This agenda was laid out maliciously and with purpose in the public schools, and has been very effective.  Communist Leader Nakita Kruschev detailed it in a very concise way during a visit to the United States in 1959 when he said:  “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”

So, the first real step to get this agenda rolling is to undermine the Founding Fathers, their sacrifices, and their intent.  Let’s look at it.

Why care about the Founder’s intent?  That’s simple.  First, understanding and recognizing the founder’s intent is as important for Americans as it is for Christians to teach the true meaning of Christmas to their children.  The generation of our Founders and their families made more sacrifices for our country than any other generation ever has and likely ever will until the collapse of our republic.  When our Founders signed the Declaration of Independence by “mutually pledge[ing] our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor,” they paid the price for it. The British murdered many of the signers and their families during the Revolution.  So we owe it to their posterity to keep their intent alive.  Additionally, with few exceptions, the founders were very specific.  If you are interested in the specifics of what they believed, you can read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.  They give specific examples of the power granted to the gov’t and specifically state that those powers not expressed are reserved for the states.  In essence, the purpose of the Constitution was to protect the people from gov’t tyranny and abuses.  Let’s look at some of the abuses.

Spending: The Father of our Constitution, James Madison, said of a $15,000 appropriations bill “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”  Let’s suppose that the Secretary of Health and Human Services showed up to the White House and made the following suggestion to President Madison.  “Mr. President, there is a fantastic new medical procedure I think we need to fund.  We have a pregnant woman who does not want to keep her baby, and we have a doctor that can administer a drug to force the woman into labor.  Then, after the baby enters the birth canal, he will puncture the baby’s skull and suction out the brain causing a painless death.  We think this is important because clearly the constitution provides this woman the right to reproductive freedom.”  While that may be a “reasonable” argument in the minds of very few Americans, I feel pretty certain that President Madison would not agree in the funding because it is an object of benevolence.

Right to Bear Arms:  In a column on this blog entitled A Hunting Rant, Zig opined on Dec 16th at 5:33pm, “The second amendment was written when their [sic] were wolves around every corner and people had to kill wild animals to put food on their familly’s [sic] table. But, those times are long gone.”  Zig is dead wrong, and has been lied to at school. I was told the second amendment was there for protection from the Indians (now referred to as Native Americans,) also a lie. The founders did not trust gov’t, and believed that the Second Amendment was designed to allow WE THE PEOPLE to defend the First Amendment if tyranny should prevail.  Here was Thomas Jefferson’s take on it: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  I think that says it all.

Hurricane Katrina: President Bush took a lot of heat because of the incompetence of the state and local gov’t in the State of Louisiana.  We all probably remember the moron Kanye West telling everyone that “George Bush hates black people.”  Many thought the President should have had military troops in there sooner. The reality is that the blood of Hurricane Katrina rests in the hands of Louisiana officials.  Why?  Simple; the Commander-in-Chief does not have the authority to send United States troops anywhere without the request of the Governor of the state.  You may remember how poorly prepared for Katrina the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor were…and how stupid they were.  I distinctly remember watching Moron Nagen during his press conferences before the storm hit.  He clearly was not capable of leading anyone during a crisis. Additionally, the levees did not fail until the day after the hurricane, and it was initially believed that they would hold.  The President can only go with the information that is provided to him and what the Constitution allows him to do.  It is not his fault that Mayor Nagen is an idiot.

Slavery:  The majority of the Founders have been lied about regarding slavery.  Many liberal “thinkers” today will tell you that The Constitution prolonged slavery, but that is untrue.  Slavery was in existence in the Americas long before our founders were born.  Many inherited slaves from dead relatives, and there were laws limiting the freeing of slaves. Reading the words of many of the founders, and understanding their intent is vital to understanding their role in ending slavery.  The founders understood that they would not be able to win the revolution and end slavery at the same time, so they set up a series of events with the intent to end slavery. It took 78 years to accomplish. The southern states wanted slaves to count as one person when it came to representation, and the northern states did not want a slave to count at all.  The north stance was ‘end slavery, or don’t count them.’ The 3/5 clause was a major breakthrough in ending slavery because it put the debate up front.  How could you have 3/5 of a person? We consider that discussion to be appalling just as the abolitionist did in the late 1700’s and through the 1800’s.  The compromise ended up working. Free blacks were counted as a whole person.  Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person thereby limiting the number of pro-slavery representatives the slave states had in Congress.  Therefore, the 3/5 clause was the first anti-slavery idea in the Constitution.  Additionally, and contrary to what we’ve been taught in school, the United States was far ahead of the curve when it came to ending slavery.  The British Empire did not abolish slavery until 1834.  By then, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa did not permit slavery.  Slavery remained in existence in European territories until 1936 and remained in the Middle East until Oman abolished it in 1970.  However, slavery and the slave trades silently exist to this day.

Our founders knew what they were doing when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.  They did not expect their “experiment” to last long because of the reality of federal tyranny.  We have lasted because of our belief in the premise of our founders and our understanding of their intent.   They also understood that ignorance would be their greatest enemy, and that is why the Federalist Papers were written.  They were the vehicle used to explain the Constitution and the writers’ intent to the citizens of the United States.  Ignorance is our greatest enemy today.  In addition to Communist Goals number 29, 30, and 31, Goal number 17 is coming home to roost: Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.  If you don’t believe me, try reading the Federalist Papers, or John Adams by David McCullough, or Lies my Teacher told Me by James Loewen, or the papers and letters of our founders, and compare it to what you or your kids are being taught in school today. 

The basic principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness exist today as they existed during the first week of July 1776. Those rights are still endowed by our Creator and the power to preserve those rights is still on loan to our elected officials by WE THE PEOPLE.  Most importantly, we must continue to preserve not only the words of our founding documents, but their intent for generations to come.  Our founders understood that idea well.  On July 2, 1776, George Washington wrote: ‘The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army.”  They were conscious of the generations to follow.  Why aren’t we?

All Posts / Family/Lifestyle / General Moaning / Group Sharing / Guest Posts / Law and Order / Politics American Founding Fathers / Political Debate / Politics /

Comments

  1. Zig says:

    NCD, you have entirely to much time on your hands. You lost me after you stated your lies about the communists’ goals and objectives…Please state your source and show me where to find these “The Communist Goals of 1963 number 29, 30, and 31,” of which you speak!

    And for you to call me a communist is pretty funny. I operate within your capatalist system and I excell at it, while you do not! Apparently, you took yourself out of the system. Probably because you couldn’t figure out how to play the game, idiot!

  2. Zig says:

    And I want the source of these goals..not just what some lady from Florida said the Communists said and did. I want a direct quote from a communist saying that these are his goals!

  3. NeoConDon says:

    Zig,

    You could probably pick it up at work somewhere or at your next meeting, but here some info…

    The quote starts on page 259.

    California State University at San Jose, Clark Library stacks call number:
    Naked Communist
    HX

    The book was published in 1961, and was entered into the congressional record in 1963. Here’s a link that copies that original congressional record.

    http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
    56
    S55

    Book title page:
    Skousen, W. Cleon. Naked Communist
    Salt Lake City, Utah: Ensign Publishing Co.
    C. 1961 , 9th edition July 1961.

    “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”

    – Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

  4. Mike says:

    Don, good post. Seriously. I don’t have time right now to leave a detailed reply, but I did want to say one thing.

    Your comments about Bush taking the heat for Katrina are wrong. Bush took the heat because he appointed a complete idiot to run FEMA. Were Louisiana officials also to blame? Sure they were, but the real problem was FEMA and that reflected poorly on Bush.

    I’ll reply more about the communist allegations later. lol.

  5. NeoConDon says:

    FEMA was certainly a major failure AFTER they were asked to arrive. One of the big problems was this was at a time when the brand new Homeland Security Dept. was being formed. It should have proven President Bush right when he said we didn’t need a Dept. of Homeland Security. He was forced into it by the libs in congress, and he always gave into them for some reason.

  6. Tristan says:

    FEMA is a failure because it should not exist, just as Homeland Security should not exist. It’s just more useless bloat that we carry on our backs, aiding our eventual demise.

    I wouldn’t be surprised by a force seeking to spread communism to the U.S., just as we seek to spread democracy (albeit a bastardized form) to the world. My continued point on that matter is that spreading freedom is a nice idea, but the consequence is that our own freedom is spread thin. There are too many fronts to the idealogical war to sustain our livelihood at home. Zig says he excels in our capitalist system, but that perceived success hangs in the balance as the system itself teeters dangerously-close to the breaking point. Without freedom, we will fail.

    All in all, a phenomenal post on the value of our Constitution and how that value is lost on today’s society. For readers uncomfortable with the idea of an underlying communist agenda (which I expect to yield quite a bit of resistance), skipping that idea entirely still leaves valuable knowledge of Constitutional history that most people have forgotten.

  7. Mike says:

    Don (a.k.a. Joe McCarthy)

    Well, I’m not communist. It’s rather easy to take assorted quotes of mine and make them say what you want. I’ll go over each one.

    1. What I said about European history vs. American history. This point had absolutely nothing to do with politics, but instead religion. I said I enjoy European history because it gives a complete outlook on how religion was formed. American history does not show this. This is a fact that you know to be true and has NOTHING to do with any supposed communist agenda. WHAT HAS AMERICA CONTRIBUTED TO RELIGIOUS HISTORY DON? Answer that question! The answer is NOTHING, except that Europeans came here to escape religious persecution. That’s IT. It is rather moronic for you to even try to stretch my comments here into support for your communist agenda theory.

    2. When I said that I hate the “Founding fathers” argument. I do hate the founding fathers argument, because it’s a complete contradiction of itself. You say it’s part of the communist agenda to say that the Constitution is outdated and can’t hold up over time, HOWEVER the founding fathers KNEW that would happen. That’s why they allowed for AMENDMENTS to the document. They were smart guys, and knew that the Constitution would need updating from time to time to keep it relevant. For you to say otherwise is down right ignorant. If that truly is part of a communist agenda to keep the Constitution relevant with amendments, then I guess the founding fathers were communist.

    This is probably the first time I’ve ever called you an Idiot, Idiot! I hope it’s the last because I don’t believe you meant any real disrespect to me by saying these things, but I don’t appreciate any association with communism.

    The last thing I’ll bring up is a quote from this very thread of yours.
    “In essence, the purpose of the Constitution was to protect the people from gov’t tyranny and abuses. Let’s look at some of the abuses.”

    You say that you’re against changing anything about the Constitution and are for keeping it’s integrity. However, you have no problem whatsoever about President Bush taking away our civil liberties by establishing the Patriot Act. Clearly it’s OK for a Republican to twist the Constitution and have a blatant disregard for the founding fathers’ intent. It’s even more greatly emphasized with the torture in Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay goes against the Constitution in just about every manner, yet it was ok by you probably. For the record, I have yet to decide how I feel about the subject. I’m still sitting on the fence, but at least I know it is a violation of human rights.

    The only hidden communist agenda is an imaginary one inspired by Joseph McCarthy. You have obviously drank too much of his kool-aid.

  8. NeoConDon says:

    Thanks for your feedback Libby. That was a well thought out argument. Your premise is way off though. I think it’s extremely important for me to once again say that I don’t think you’re a communist. I never called you a communist. You think like one though.

    I was using your previous comments as proof that the goals of communism have been perpetuated in our text books, in print media, and Commie-Wood for decades…not necessarily as malicious lies today, but rather lies repeated and now considered truth. Sort of the Darwin approach to communism. I found it very interesting that you brought up the great American patriot, Senator Joseph McCarthy. I would suggest you read a little about him as history has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union and we learned how right he was (something I was not taught in school in the 1980’s.)

    I don’t see a need in going through your arguments point by point since you obviously either didn’t read what I wrote, or you didn’t proofread your response. But I would say that your conclusion in both of your numbered points perfectly emphasise the example of what I was saying and concluded my argument better than I ever could. The premise of each of your arguments were way off, but the results were ideal.

    The rest of your response is again based on an invented premise of things you think I said or think I believe but you never really address what I actually wrote. Then, just like every good mind numbed lib, you throw in the Patriot Act and Gitmo…debates I would certainly win, but not part of this discussion.

    Finally, the question you asked very perfectly illustrates my point. “WHAT HAS AMERICA CONTRIBUTED TO RELIGIOUS HISTORY DON?” The fact that you even asked that question has satisfied my premise. You should go with Zig and ask for refunds from your “educators.”

  9. Mike says:

    Don, do you have an answer for what America has contributed to the advancement of religion? What has America done for religion that Europe or Asia didn’t? You can’t answer the question because you know I’m right. If you actually believe I’m so wrong, then teach me. Inform me of what America has given to the significance of religion.

    Also, answer why the founding fathers included the area for Constitution amendments if they intended it to read verbatim 200 plus years later?

    And don’t assume you’d win an argument about Gitmo with me, because chances are we don’t even disagree about it. I’m still undecided on it. On one hand it bothers me about the treatment of individuals there, but on the other hand it only bothers me if they might have been innocent.
    If you don’t answer these questions, then I’ll know how misguided and whacked out you really are.

  10. Zig says:

    NCD, didn’t we go to the same college? How is it that you left college with an extremely different response to social stimuli than I did? Why is it that you fit the image of a McCarthyist, ” The term “McCarthyism,” coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy’s practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist pursuits. Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.[2]” This quote is from Wikipedia…

    I think Mike is right on. Your angry Republican politics, McCarthy like paranoia, will only lead to your early death from a stroke or a heart attack. Give it up1 No one is out to get you. No one would want anything that you have! What has America contributed to religion, Don? Please, site your source…

  11. NeoConDon says:

    I’m going to work up a column about your religion in america question. It is far too detailed to respond in a comment, and quite frankly, I’m still floored that you even answered it. The question itself sums up what I think is the overall ignorance of our education system.

    I don’t have any idea as to what you’re talking about with your other question on the amendments. I suggest you go back and re-read the post and make sure you understand what I’m saying, becuase I can assure you that you don’t understand what I’m saying based in your question.

  12. NeoConDon says:

    Ziggy Said…”NCD, didn’t we go to the same college? ”

    Yes we did. However, you did not take any history classes which leave your view of history tainted by the typical “McCarthy was a nut” line from the high school textbooks. Things have changed since then. Are you surprised the changes haven’t been written about by our “news” media or portrayed in Hollywood?

  13. Mike says:

    Don, I’m not off base on my second question. You quoted me directly in saying that the Constitution needs to be updated to stay current with the times. You used this quote to support your hidden communist agenda theory about how people like me want to discredit the American Constitution by saying it’s outdated. That is not misunderstood by me, that is exactly what you meant. Maybe you should go re-read your statements. So, let me ask the question again. Why is it communist to say that the Constitution is old-fashioned and needs updating when the founding fathers predicted this very thing would happen, hence, they allowed for amendments?

    No insults this time from me, answer the question!

    And thanks for proving my point that you can’t even name one thing that America has contributed to the advancement of religion. That might explain why American religious history isn’t a class at any college throughout the world.

  14. NeoConDon says:

    Libby,

    I’m working on the religion question, and I’ll get it to the CC so he can post it. From what I understand, it should be up mid-week.

    I’m not trying to insult you, I’m trying to help you. You clearly don’t understand what you’re saying. I never said: “people like [you] want to discredit the American Constitution by saying it’s outdated.] I also never mentioned a secret communist agenda. Why do you think I don’t support amending the constitution? You really need to read what I wrote. But thanks, you’re doing a bang up job.

    BTW…I haven’t figured out if you’re being serious with your confusion, or trying to pull a Char-LIE Gibson meets Sarah Palin on me…

  15. Otis says:

    Mike,

    One of NCD’s biggest faults is that he assumes that people understand the basis of his argument before they engage in debate with him. Is it possible that you think he believes the constitution should not be ammended because it would change the “premise of the founders original intent?” I understand what he’s saying, and I think I see what you’re asking…but your question is based on your misunderstanding of what he said because that’s not what he said. I hope I’m explaining this clearly.

  16. Sid says:

    NeoConDon,

    Above you said, “…help people understand why liberals might believe what the communists believe.”

    I find that interesting because conservatives, like you, keep saying that the new Administration will push for a socialist agenda; and you oppose that. But weren’t the 1963 Communist Goals written for a Socialist America?

    Sid

  17. NeoConDon says:

    You’re right, Sal. The Obama administration is pushing a socialist agenda, and of course I oppose that type of agenda. And the communist goals were designed to implement socialism and eventually force a conversion to communism, just like Kruschev said. It has been happening slowly over the past 5 decades. Nationalized healthcare and the enviro-fascist movement will likely be the final straws.

  18. NeoConDon says:

    sorry…I meant Sid. I don’t know why I wrote “Sal”…too early I guess.

  19. Mike says:

    I understand exactly what Don wrote. Maybe if he meant something else he should have written it that way.

    Don wrote:
    29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

    He was listing off one of the communist goals. He then used a quote of mine from a past argument about how I disagree with the “Founding fathers” argument. The premise of said argument is that it bothers me when people say that a certain idea wasn’t what the founding fathers intended on. It’s a moot point to argue what the founding fathers intended because the Constitution was written well over 200 years ago. Things change over time. Those men knew it, I know it, but somehow Don doesn’t quite get it.

    You listed communist goal #29 as a way to prove your point that I must think like a communist since I agree that the Constitution needs amended since it’s old-fashioned and antiquated. However, I think this communist goal is completely bogus and ridiculous because the founding fathers themselves knew the Constitution would need amended later on down the line. They knew it would need updated. Thus, your communist goal #29 must mean that our founding fathers were communist.

    Put down the crack pipe old man, take your schizophrenia meds, and quit watching Red Dawn. Just for fun, I’m willing to bet that you don’t believe we landed on the moon either.

  20. NeoConDon says:

    You’re getting way too wrapped up in this Libby, but you’re proving my point perfectly. For at least 2 generations, schools haven’t taught the reason behind the Constitution because they are presenting it as written by racists…its ideas are out of touch or old fashioned, and there really isn’t anything special about it. Additionally, instead of teaching a true historical perspecitve on McCarthy, they teach the commie-wood version. You’ve clearly bought into all of it, or haven’t done any extra study beyond highschool. When I asked questions, they either didn’t know the answer, or gave a very inconsistent response year after year, or they would refuse to debate an issue. For me, it all sounded too weird, so I opened up my mind and figured out why I was being taught un-truths, or half-truths, and over the couse of 15 years, that openmindedness has led me down the conservative road.

    One final correction for you…you’re still confused about the whole amendment thing. Believing in the amendment process is not an idea that verifies learned communist thought. It is the basis of our rights. I really don’t understand why you keep bringing it up. The purpose of the amendments are not to change an antiquated portion of the Constitution. The Constitution can’t become antiquated based on its premise. That premise is that the Constitution is a domcument designed to protect WE THE PEOPLE from gov’t tyranny. The amendments become necessary when GOV’T becomes antiquated, not the other way around.

    As far as the existance of a communist force to bring down the U.S., that force was embedded in FDR’s administration, discoverd by McCarthy, and finally destroyed by Reagan and Thatcher. The rest has been growing from within. Why else would we have elected a socialist President that promised antiquated ideas of change?

  21. Mike says:

    First of all, I never learned a thing about McCarthy in highschool. I learned about him all on my own. Some of us actually have intelligence, rather than just making BS up like you.

    Second of all, you continue to ignore my questions and play dumb. You remind me of Bush. I’m done with this thread and your ignorance. At this point you’re not even debating/arguing…just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. It’s typical of a conservative to ignore an argument that refutes part of your point.

    Here’s a quote for you:
    “Why dazzle them with brilliance when you can baffle them with BS”.

    And…SCREW THE STEELERS! as far as I’m concerned they’re the luckiest team in history. I don’t care how many super bowls they win, they STILL suck!

  22. NeoConDon says:

    Way to go Libby…you’re trying to make stuff up and debate a point I didn’t make. Stop being such a closed minded robot. You’re a good little lib, aren’t you? Oh, I’m sorry, you’re a moderate..which means you don’t know what you think…unless it sounds good at the time.

  23. MystWlker says:

    To respond to Mike’s disparagement of Joseph McCarthy:
    With the release of documents from the Venona Project in the late 90’s, it was shown that McCarthy was, in point of fact, correct about the infiltration of our highest levels of government by agents of the Soviet Union. Remember Alger Hiss? He was just one of those shown to be guilty after all. Wh defended his innocence? Liberals, for the most part…

    So before you start throwing “McCarthyism” around as a disparagement, you might want to research that a bit more thoroughly. Just a suggestion…….

  24. Mike says:

    MystWlker,
    I can go around and claim every single person I see is a leper…and odds are I’ll eventually find someone who actually is. It proves nothing. Odds were that McCarthy would get a few right. But don’t worry, I wouldn’t expect someone like you to understand what the law of averages is. I guess you’ve never taken a statistics class. I know who McCarthy was, and I know what he was all about. Your contribution to this post is meaningless and unwarranted. Congratulations on having said nothing new.

  25. NeoConDon says:

    Don’t worry MystWiker, as soon as you start confronting liberals like Mike with the truth as opposed to the B.S. he picked up from commie-wood, they can only shout back at you as a liar. They have become mind numbed robots of the liberal fascists.

  26. Mike says:

    And any normal person with an ounce of intelligence can figure out for themselves that Don has no idea what he’s talking about. He has no ability to carry on a conversation or debate. It becomes nothing more than a hate-fest of people and groups he knows nothing about. It’s like watching the Three Stooges for 24 hours straight…eventually you’ll get tired of the same boring material presented to you over and over and over again.

    Libs suck, Obama is socialist, Mike is communist, Mike was lied to in public school, blah blah blah blah blah…I don’t care anymore.

  27. NeoConDon says:

    I never called you a communist, Libby. I called you stupid, a moron, and maybe an idiot. Obama might not be a socialist, he may be a communist. You were lied to in public school, but you don’t believe it because you believe in out of date old-fashioned liberal fear mongering.

  28. Mike says:

    HAHA, liberal fear mongering…that’s just funny. It’s funny how blind you are to the fact that fear mongering precisely fits the description of the Republican regime for the past 8 years, not the new liberal one. You’re borderline schizophrenic Don. Please seek help. I fear you may hurt someone someday.

  29. Mike says:

    Edit:
    It’s not funny that you’re borderline schizophrenic. I seriously think you should be checked out for that. From the short time I’ve talked with you, I’ve noticed how you think everyone is out to get you…starting with the teachers in public school.

  30. NeoConDon says:

    Libby,

    You’re a communist.

  31. Mike says:

    Lee Harvey,
    Take your meds.

  32. Otis says:

    Wow! I’m out of it for a little while and I miss all of the fun stuff. NCD, can’t believe it took you so long to put Mike’s pinko commie thoughts into print. It’s not his fault, he just believes all the b.s. he’s been taught.

    Government tyranny has certainly begun in the last two years, and King Barry will move it along with his fear mongering and lies. When the gov’t officially acknowleges their bank takeover, cardcheck, and socialist medicine, things will change very fast. If Barry is as far left as he says he is, France could end up being a more advanced country than America. Oh well, who is John Galt?

  33. Mike says:

    Go live in France then Otis. And take Don with you.

    What Otis, did you just read the cliff notes on Atlas Shrugged? While you’re at it, try reading the story of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Maybe you’ll start to realize what happens to people when you and Don go around calling people commies. Like I said to Don, shut off Red Dawn, take your meds, and voluntarily admit yourself to the psych ward.

  34. Otis says:

    Zig,
    Atlas Shrugged is a great book, and eerily similar to the things we’re looking at today.

    I’m not sure what you mean when you bring the Rosenberg commies into the discussion. Gloriously executed commies that were traitors to our nation should not be defended. After all, they learned what happens when you go around selling secrets to our enemies.

  35. Otis says:

    sorry, Zig, just realized that my last response was meant for Mike. You should try reading Shrugged. You’ll learn a thing or two.

  36. NeoConDon says:

    You’re right, Otis, the logic in that book has pulled many a liberal from the dark side. I re-read John Galt’s radio speech a few days ago. Strange stuff.

  37. Mike says:

    I have read it! Why do you think I knew the quote idiot? I figured it was something you heard at a Ron Paul speech and thought it sounded cool…since you can’t form any of your own opinions. You want to hear a good story? Try watching V for Vendetta. At first glance you’ll think it’s similar to Nazi Germany…but if you look a bit deeper you’ll see it’s really about our former President and the path he put our country into. That’s what fear-mongering will do to a country.

    Oh, and there was never any solid proof the Rosenbergs did anything. It’s a prime example of how sometimes people are NOT innocent until proven guilty in this country.

  38. NeoConDon says:

    Libby,

    You really need to get your money back for that “education” you received. Especially the history part of it. The Rosenbergs were traitors, and were correctly executed for it. There’s plenty of proof, but how about Ethel’s brother informing on them after he was arrested as a Soviet spy. Not to mention the Venona Project unveiled in 1995 that neither FDR or Truman knew about (likely because they couldn’t be trusted with such secret information against communists.) Venona contained the various decryped Soviet Cables revealing the communists embedded in the U.S.. Finally, after the fall of the Soviet Union, KGB documents were released that further expanded the truth about communist infestation in the U.S. gov’t during the 30’s and 40’s. You don’t see that reported in the liberal media…it seems the public schools went from teaching McCarthyism as an evil attempt to bring down the liberal party to not teaching it at all since it turned out to be true.

    I know that some people like to get their political theory from commie-wood and Natalie Portman, but you just sound so stupid when you admit to it. Seriously, if all you’re going to do is bring up commie-wood films made from comic books as your premise, go to The Star Celeb…

  39. Mike says:

    First of all, if you bring up an idea or quote from a book, Atlas Shrugged, then I should be able to bring up an idea from a movie. There’s nothing wrong about it. If you’ve seen the movie, then you know of the idea I’m talking about. It’s called a plot, and both movies and books have it. If you need further education on how to enjoy either, please let me know.

    I don’t care about your communist conspiracy theory rants. As far as I’m concerned, everything that you type is pure BS. I don’t blame the schools like you do, and I don’t blame communism. I just think you’re ill. Somewhere along the line you fell in love with hearing yourself speak/type. Now you’re nothing but a delusional misanthrope. I’m only saddened by the fact that you got me to type a few more responses to your moronic ramblings after I already said I was done with this thread.

  40. NeoConDon says:

    Libby,

    I still can’t figure out how even someone as stupid as you could compare the totalitarian regime in “V” with GWB.

  41. Mike says:

    Hmm, you didn’t see a resemblance with the whole “Keep the people in fear” strategy the government had in the movie? Looks like you’re the idiot.

    DONE!

  42. NeoConDon says:

    Are you referring to the liberal fascist fearmongering of King Barry and the libs based on lies…like the economic collapse, or global warming and all of the lies from Reid and Pelosi? Not sure what fear mongering you’re referring to from GWB, otherwise you would mention specifics…

  43. Otis says:

    You’re right NCD. I’ve never seen fear-mongering like what Obama is engaging today. I wonder how many soft-ball questions he’ll get from the media tonight.

Leave a Reply