Posted by
thekeenobserver on Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:38:24 PM
In August of 1945, Stalin had massed his Red army at the border of Iran, believing that a war-weary America was ready to follow the lead of the late, liberal, trusting FDR, (who had blundered at Yalta), and would not at all want to risk extending the war into a new front in the Middle East.
But Stalin had yet to experience the fiery determination of a "show-me” Missourian, Harry Truman.
After consulting with James Byrnes, his Secretary of State, Truman sent a STRONGLY WORDED telegram to Mr. Stalin in Russia, encouraging him to retreat, and consider doing it immediately.
The flavor of their communication was along these lines:
Truman: Hello? Mr. Stalin?
Stalin: Yes Mr. Truman…
Truman: We heard that your Red army is about to march into Iran and establish a Tudeh (communist) regime in Teheran, and take advantage of the current weakness of the Iranian political structure there.
Stalin: Where in the world did you hear that? We have no designs on post war expansion into Iran, Turkey, eastern Europe, nor anywhere-
Truman: Uh, sorry to interrupt Mr Stalin, but you know those two big bombs we just dropped on Japan...did you hear about them yet?
Stalin: Umm, what do you mean?
Truman: I mean that if you don’t call your generals A_S_A_P and back your army away from the Iranian border within 48 hours, I will immediately dispatch another atomic bomb mission from our bases in Libya, and drop the next one right on their fur-capped red heads! Ca-pish?
Stalin: uh yeah…I capish. I’ll give em your message AT ONCE SIR! Just don’t be impatient…I’ll have them out of there pronto!
But the liberal press hated Harry Truman; he was lampooned for his bluntness, folksiness, and lacked the sophistication and eloquence of FDR, so you hear little of the heroic stand he took against Stalin at the end of hostilities in 1945, when the U.S. had no third atomic bomb.
But what if Truman had not bluffed Stalin out of Iran back then? The entire Mideast map of post-World War II might have gone all communist, and to this very day, they might be the ones we would be paying for imported oil, instead of OPEC.
Everyone recalls reading of the untimely death of FDR in April 1945 at Warm Springs, Georgia; but what if the trusting liberal Roosevelt had lived even 3 or 4 more months...what would he have done with the lying, greedy expansionist Josef Stalin at the borders of Iran?
The point is, liberals always seem to want to give our enemies the benefit of the doubt, figuring that even if they ARE liars, America, (in the parlance of Michelle Obama) is a downright mean and racist country, and deserves not of her status as a free prosperous nation, because it was built upon the backs of "oppressed people", and foreign, jingoistic imperialism.
Yes-- whenever liberals have their chance to deliver a black eye to their homeland, they're of the mindset: "There! That's what you deserve; you racist, bullying, militaristic, imperialist, expansionist United States of America!
Obviously, like our hallowed 32nd president, Frank Roosevelt, the left-leaning liberal roots of those who would (after the war) grievously betray our country, were founded in their youthful days during the hard times of the 30's...(similar comparisons could be made to the present time).
Thus, many of the most infamous and damaging pro-Soviet spies embraced the Left during the Depression.
One of the most egregious was Alger Hiss, who viewed spying against his home country as little more than ‘youthful idealism’. Youthful idealism? Oh God! But many of the pro-liberal historians who wrote our history textbooks, have chosen to describe Hiss' treachery in innocuous terms.
See kids? Spying against America, and giving up the most vital of its hydrogen bomb secrets, was merely “youthful idealism.” And back then, if you could find a liberal lawyer, who would seat a liberal jury, even a blatantly guilty communist spy would be convicted of a only a minor charge (such as lying under oath) . . .and gee-whiz, it was only for the small infraction of surrendering American hydrogen bomb secrets to Russia, and prolonging and escalating the cold war to another 35 years! That's all.
And arguably, the damage from Hiss changed the course of world events (for the worse) more than any other individual in American history!
But the revisionist liberal history books mention not a word about this obvious conclusion. Dangerous liberal professors, such as David Goldfield et. al. continue to inform students that ..."any documents Hiss might have stolen were of limited importance.”
This of course becomes the same excuse provided for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The Rosenbergs--which are the duo who were complicit in passing our original atomic bomb secrets to the Soviets between 45-47-- arguably could be stated as the cause for an emboldened Stalin to close off 1948 Berlin, because he knew Truman could bully him no more. Since Stalin was holding an equal hand in weaponry now, he made the brazen attempt to squeeze the Allies out of Berlin, thanks to the dastardly liberal ideas of Julie and Ethel Rosenberg
The pro-liberal media back in post-war America was instrumental in Hiss being convicted not of treason, but only perjury. They often took the attitude that American spies, by definition, can’t give anything of importance to the Soviets, because the Soviets were so brilliant that they already had all this technology, and were just “holding it in reserve,”
Back then liberals (including spies such as the Rosenbergs and Hiss) were of the mind that even if something was important, it was better that an enemy of America have it, because the U.S. was such an evil, racist country, that it deserved to be defeated anyway! Sound Familiar?
And to this very day, there are many diplomats working in our Department of State, who were appointed by Clinton, and even a few remaining Carter administration picks, (also in the CIA), who carry the leftist flag of defeatism; and wish to project American weakness and appeasement.
They are apologists at large, and could be considered as complicit to treasonous actions.
But weakness is provocative: it invites attacks from our enemies.
All liberals are cut from the same cloth in their view of their country; so they seek positions of power for the sole purpose of weakening America both domestically, economically, and militarily, because to them: "America doesn't deserve to be free...America doesn't deserve to be prosperous...and America would be best served by big government to take care of the helpless masses, so major corporations can take advantage of them no more!"
Liberals raise taxes, expand government, and one-by-one, seek to deny freedoms, because the Constitution goes against everything they stand for!
We the People... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense… secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…
The left hates our Constitution because the Preamble begins with the very opposite of their belief system: “We the people”...instead of “Us the Government”.
The Constitution limits what they can do. So therefore, they seek to reinterpret it to the only way it could suit them.
Liberals appoint leftist judges, who legislate from the bench; it is the instrument of how they evoke change, and force their mindset on those who would protest. Judges who exercise a fluid, amorphous view of the Constitution, treating it as a flexible paper upon which new interpretations can be imposed and in which new rights can be found; and assist a liberal administration in how much the government can expand.
So liberals view the Constitution as a living document, and view the original as some dried old parchment that was written by a bunch of wealth-seeking, greedy, racist, European white guys.
Liberals seek to control everyone's lives; government is for social change for the better! And liberals firmly hold that they know best. Ever since FDR and the New Deal, liberalism has been gathering political momentum.
Since all liberals seem to be of like mind, lets call them "the Universal Fraternity of Liberals", who, whether from any time, or any era, are always seeking positions of power, feeling they are superior over the common man. Because of their inherently greater gifts of intelligence, and their sympathy for the "disadvantaged", they see themselves as the flag-bearers for the advancement of humanity and civil rights.
Liberalism remains most popular among those in academia and politics, because liberals seek positions of influence, and commonly tend to be highly-educated and relatively affluent. Liberals are predominantly white, and garner the support of the young. They are also the least religious political group.
Since they are educated and wealthy, liberals believe they're entitled to power. And ironically they seek their power to deny others liberty, holding up fairness as their excuse for legislative tyranny.
They seek to “generously" re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor. They are especially fair when it comes to other people’s money; but they’re quite stingy when it comes to contributing their own. They feel morally superior, even though 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services
They freely pass judgment on others; yet they resent being judged themselves. Their universal mission at hand is to make the world "as it should be", rather than the way it actually is.
Therefore, liberals believe in their right to acquire power the marxist way-- by any means necessary! Lie, cheat, distort, or fabricate your way to dominance! Deceive the Conservatives because they are the common enemy of the greater good!
Steal their elections...calumnize their reputations, belittle their accomplishments...ridicule their lifestyles...disenchant their supporters...all is fair in love, war, elections, spying, and doing anything by any means necessary, to advance the cause of liberalism everywhere, and saving the world!