Lottery Post Journal

Hillary's Communist Agenda

I don't really have anything to say about this.  I just wanted to post a headline as ridiculous as the anti-Bush propagandists who are cherry-picking left-wing hate articles from around the Internet and posting them here.

22 Comments:

  • Excuse me for hogging your blog space but it's in print to back up your statement. The following is about 5% of what's on that linked page.

    "DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
    SECTION: THE POLITICAL WINDS
    SUBSECTION: SOCIALISM
    Revised 1/8/01

    EXCERPTS FROM NAKED COMMUNIST
    SOCIALIST AGENDA PROMOTED IN CONGRESS


    WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist "… I first heard of Bill Clinton 16 years ago. Here is how it happened. I was getting a teaching credential, and one of my classes was on adolescent psychology. The professor in this course, who was a very admirable teacher, seemed to favor me. One day, after class, she invited me to a 7 p.m. meeting at the Science Lecture Hall. At the time I didn't know she was a Marxist, and I didn't know the meeting would be political. She said that if I cared about education in the state of California I would attend. Having the night off from work I decided on going, partly owing to curiosity. Well, I couldn't have been more surprised if it had been a coven of witches. Arriving early at the Science Lecture Hall, I found communist literature -- books and pamphlets -- stacked on tables in the lobby. A visiting professor was the speaker. He gave a rousing talk on overthrowing the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in America. How would this be accomplished? By taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing. The speaker said it was possible to elect a stealth socialist president, who would effect a peaceful transition to socialism during the next great economic down-turn. Capitalism would be unmasked as a bankrupt system. The people would then support a new socialist system. All businesses would be nationalized by the government and run like the Post Office. This socialist president, said the speaker, could be elected in either 1988 or 1992. The only problem was that of timing. When would the next major economic downturn hit? Some days later I went to visit my professor at her office hours. We talked about the speaker and the book he had written. We talked about Marxism and the idea of changing the system. Then, suddenly, my professor said: "We have such high hopes for this young Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton." That was the first time I heard Bill Clinton's name. …"

    WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist "… But it wasn't the first time I'd heard this idea of taking over the left wing of the Democratic Party and electing a stealth socialist president. I'd first heard that idea in 1981, when I was a senior at the University of California. The left wing activist, Derek Shearer, came to speak on the subject of "economic democracy." Two radical friends of mine dragged me to hear him, though I had my heart set on a game of chess that day. So I went to listen to Shearer's talk, and I sat there in the front row, concentrating on his theory of "economic democracy," thinking to myself: This is just like Marxism. After Shearer finished speaking I went up and asked him, point blank. "Mr. Shearer, what is the difference between Marxism and "economic democracy"? He looked at me a bit suspiciously for a second, then he said, "I probably shouldn't say this, but there is no difference." I had a long discussion with Shearer about why he wasn't a forthright Marxist. He said that Marxism was unpopular with the American people, who have a knee-jerk negative reaction to words like "socialism" and "communism," even though -- according to Shearer -- these are perfectly good words. Therefore, in order to win Americans over to socialist ways of thinking, you need to create a new, euphemistic language -- a kind of linguistic deception. Shearer also talked about taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing and electing a stealth socialist president. As it happens, Derek Shearer is a friend of Bill Clinton….."

    WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist "…Does anyone remember that Hillary Clinton arranged to give $15,000 to the National Lawyer's Guild -- an organization founded in the 1930s as a branch of the Communist Party USA -- when she chaired the New World Foundation? Does anybody deny her assistance to various Marxist-inspired causes, from the Black Panthers to the Christic Institute and CISPES (a front for Central American Marxist terrorists)? Bill Clinton was not merely a draft evader during the Vietnam War. The truth is, he was for the Viet Cong terrorists. And that is why he went to Moscow and Prague almost 30 years ago. That is why he married the young radical, Hillary Clinton. And that is why he was friends with Derek Shearer. It also explains why my professor of 16 years ago, who was a Marxist, had such high hopes for that young governor, Bill Clinton. Seven months ago an intelligence professional, whose credentials are impeccable, told me something quite alarming. He told of a taped conversion between two Czech Communist officials. They were discussing a young American college student -- Bill Clinton -- who was then visiting Prague. They mentioned that he was expected to attend a meeting at a certain place which was reserved for the recruitment of Communist bloc agents. "Where is this tape now," I asked. "Nobody seems to know," he answered….."


    WorldNetDaily 7/22/99 J R Nyquist "…In February there was another curious incident involving a retired CIA official. This particular fellow was genuinely alarmed at information he had on President Clinton's ties to the Russian security services. When pressed by a famous journalist to provide details, the CIA man shrank away. Publicity is death to people involved in secret intelligence work. And now, more recently, I have received information from a third source inside U.S. intelligence. His story is even more fantastic. It is so fantastic that I dare not repeat what he reported…."
    http://alamo-girl.com/0341.htm

    By konane, at 7:39 AM

  • You know, the one thing I would really like to see around here -- not that I think there's any chance of seeing it -- is reasoned debate free from dopiness. People who are still thinking that George Bush and Dick Cheney are plotting to install the Third Reich as our system of government are either purposely spreading crap they know isn't true, or are just plain clueless.

    Bush has less than a year left in office. I wonder how he's going to accomplish that, and I wonder to what purpose will it serve? It's just dopey. It's stupid.

    The latest "article" LottoMike posted is supported by the Seattle Post Intelligencer, which is perhaps the most radical left-leaning newspaper in the country. The editorial page actively roots *against* America on the battlefield and at home. They are the type who believe that the America of today is a bad country and needs to be fixed, by having a government that runs people's lives. They believe anyone who does think as they do should be ridiculed and marginalized.

    Oh yeah, they "support the troops".   They are "proud of our men and women serving". Stangely, I can't seem to think of a single way they've demonstrated that support.

    The funny thing is, I don't know how these radicals think the country will defend itself without a strong military. Maybe they think if we're nice to other countries, they'll be nice to us. All we have to do is treat them with "compassion". Like the French did for the Nazis.

    By Todd, at 8:07 AM

  • Who said: "A good commie is a dead commie." and "Better dead than red." For you young people, red is the communists' favorite color to decorate with. The Communist Chinese like the color red, they especially enjoy the patterns left on the ground when they roll over people with tanks.

    Todd, the problem with trying to have a reasoned debate is simple, the ones posting the hyperbolic drivel are convinced they are enlightening us somehow, but I think the thousands that don't post (the ones that mostly read) know better. IMHO

    By jarasan, at 9:54 AM

  • Oh, how smug and arrogant we are. The dopeys need us to think for them. If only they would open their minds to everything we have to say and let us show them how it should be done. They are clueless.

    A classic case of intellectual bigotry. gee

    And Todd, what do you expect from someone like LottoMike that still calls people "colored" we are not idiots, we know crap when we see it.

    And ya'll ain't as smart as you think you are because if you were smart at all the first thing you'll know is that the more you know the more you'll realize that there's so much more you don't know and will never know.

    So allow people to grow at their own pace. They deserve the right to grew in whatever avenue that works for them. It's all relevant or it won't be there. Hell, I started out reading "Dianatics". I laugh about it now.

    We all come from different cultures, and soci-economic backgrounds. We think differently than each other. We even process the same information differently.

    What I hear Todd saying is "What I want around here is for people to believe and think like I do so that we can have intelligent conversations" How challenging it that?

    By Tenaj, at 11:55 AM

  • Oh please Janet. To hear you speak of "smug" and "arrogant" is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I guess we can't all live up to your wide-ranging life experiences and buckets of wisdom.

    I'm not sure who the "we" are that you're referring to. (The ones who know crap when they see it.) Are you speaking for yourself, or are you the spokesperson for a clique?

    I hope you're able to recognize it upon self-inspection too.

    By Todd, at 1:05 PM

  • I just watched Bush on the tube, and he was so mad that the democrats didn't stop everything they were doing to renew the "The Protect american act". The republicans actually walked out of the building in protest. I think that tells you something, dosen't it?

    Bush has only a little time left and he's scrambling to keep the eavesdropping and surveillance crap going on well after he's gone. All under the guise of protecting the people. Give me a break.

    It's one thing to think that conspiracy nuts are just that...nuts, but it's another thing to not look at what's really going on. To just take everything as the truth, blidly believing all that is told to the masses for their own good. I'm no historian, or an intellectual of any sort, but I must say that over the past 6 years or so, I've learned a hell of a lot about what goes on behind closed doors.

    Bush wasn't the begiining of this third Reich regime and he won't be the one to bring it into fruition at it's zenith. This plan has been seeded from day one, almost 50 years now in the process. I feel it's futile for me to constantly put detailed info in my blog showing and itemizing the atrocities that have been backed up with hard evidence. People see the title, read the first few words, and make a decision right away without reading on and watching the links provided.

    Until someone can tell me what I've shown, example for example, all the details that Ive provided, and counter debate on the specifics with me, not blurting out cliches, then I can be convinced otherwise. And I'm the kind of person who has read enough to back with overwhelming evidence, common sense, and intuitiveness.

    Unfortunately, no one will do this because they're too afraid of the truth. They can't fathom their own country turning against them. That's too bad, because this is not the first time this has happened, and not just in this country, but in others.

    I guess the know it alls here think it's ok for the government to blatantly search any house they want without consent. All under the guise of the Patriot act. Hmmmmm, Yeah...I must be a conspiracy freak.

    By pacattack05, at 2:42 PM

  • And President Bush is "scrambling to keep the eavesdropping and surveillance crap going on well after he's gone" for what purpose? Does that help "his oil buddies at Haliburton"? Does it help him "cover up all the lies about weapons of mass destruction"? Does it help his legacy in the history books?

    See, I just can't figure one good reason why President Bush would give a crap about what you're saying on the phone to your neighbor.

    I can, however, understand why he would want to make sure the government can catch terrorists while they're still in the planning stages.

    You will always see President Bush's actions as something directed toward you, and I will always see his actions directed toward the bad guys. You have your reality, and I have mine.

    By Todd, at 2:58 PM

  • By the way, posting blog entries and articles published by left-wing smear merchants does not count as "proof" in my book. Neither do the 9/11 conspiracy videos and articles you posted. You know, the ones that make the case that President Bush and/or the Israelis planned and executed 9/11. That stuff may be "proof" to you, but to me it's lunacy.

    By Todd, at 3:01 PM

  • Pac, I have a friend who works on the fugitive squad, and they do break doors down, and they do take fugitives out of their HIDING places and take them straight to jail, do not collect $200. I absolutley have no problem with that. And back in the 70's they should have rounded up those mescaline dealers up there in Times Square and thrown the key away.

    If you are not a terrorist you really don't have to be so paranoid. Paranoia is a deep destroya.

    If you are a terrorist and you live next door to me, you have a lot more to worry about than just the feds.

    By jarasan, at 3:21 PM

  • Bush wants to keep it going on, not because it'll help him with Haliburton or whatever. But it does help the continued mission of the one world govt. which senior bush said out of his own mouth while he was president, wanted to one day establish.

    BTW, Alex Jones who is the front runner in exposing these people criticizes both parties. He's asked both parties why they go to a two week event every July at Bohemian grove. north of Sanfrancisco, and dress up in Klu Klux Klan garb, worshipping a 60 foot owl named Molach. Having mock effigies, and engaging in male prostitution activities. Of course they run away from answering, and when one does answer, like a video of Alex asking a promoninent member of the white house, which I POSTED in my blog, that no one probably took the time to watch,, Alex was criticized for sneaking inside the area without permission to video tape the whole thing. There's proof of Satanism and old egyptian worsgip on tape...proof of the shanannigans. But that's not good enough for everyone ...is it?

    Sorry, but if that dosent' bother you, I don't know what will...lol

    By pacattack05, at 3:23 PM

  • Jarasan, I'm not a terrorist, but you don't even have to be one for them to unjustly invade your home. You people think these isolated events will stay that way. Just mark my words, it will hit home, and when a person like jim695 posted here on the blog of what hell he went through, maybe you'll see that you don't have to be a terrorist to go through this.

    I'm sure you'll raise bloody hell murder if it happens to you. If you don't belive this will escalate, just re-read some history books.

    By pacattack05, at 3:28 PM

  • Whoa, that's wack. A little too extreme for me.

    I don't think President Bush's desire to renew the measures that have protecting us since 9/11 have anything to do with a world government spoken about by his father. You're connecting dots that are not even on the same page. I'm not saying that there isn't a movement of a NWO (New World Order), but I think stuff like NAFTA has more to do with that. It's more of an economic thing.

    Ultimately, everything in the whole world is connected, but one cannot rationally live their lives connecting every dot, no matter have far removed they are.

    By Todd, at 3:30 PM

  • @Pac: Jim's ordeal was an issue related to local (state?) law enforcement, it did not relate to the Feds. We were just talking about Federal stuff with the protection act.

    I think a better comparison would be to look at what issues are important to a liberal president vs. a conservative.

    President Clinton's administration focused on trying to bring down groups of Americans and law-abiding immigrants. Typical examples of their handiwork include Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian Gonzalez. Clinton's justice department (Janet Reno) thought that we should be trying to disrupt and take down Americans who did not want to fit into their idea of "mainstream". In the case of Gonzalez, Reno/Clinton felt that a kid should be sent back to a communist Cuba, probably because they don't look upon Communism as such a bad thing.

    President Bush, on the other hand, focuses his major efforts at those who are trying to harm Americans. They are struggling mightily to put measures in place that will disrupt terrorist activities *before* they kill Americans. Their struggle is not "to get the job done" -- they have proven that they are very good at protecting you and I. Their struggle is against the liberals and mainstream media (yes, same thing), who are doing everything in their power to erode that capability. They DO NOT support the troops, and they DO NOT support undercover operations aimed at the terrorists. Outfits like the New York Slimes salivate at the opportunity to expose a secret operation, and they have done so on numerous occasions. Case in point: they exposed the SWIFT operation, which enabled tracking of terrorist wire transfers around the world.

    This is a lot bigger topic than can be adequately discussed in the comments of my blog, but I think I've made my general point.

    By Todd, at 3:46 PM

  • You are not seeing the whole picture, that's why the dots seem so remotely apart. I guess we could be on different pages, but I see all the events as one goal.

    Are you telling me that you think those videos that were taped at bohemian grove are fake? It's been covered by all the major media events sinse the 70's. Not the tapes but the event happening every year in July.

    I can dig up old 70s pictures that were taken of nixon and reagan in attendance at those events.

    You speak of connecting dots from what senior bush said exactly 20 years to the date on 9/11 (what a coincidence, that's intruiging in itself) about one world govt. and this bush protecting us from 2001 9/11? Protecting us from what he caused or was in cahoots with? Are you kidding me?
    I hear people always saying that since 9/11 there have been no major attacks on this country and that's proof that he's doing a fine job...well...duh....of course there hasn't been a major attack becuase the govt. hasn't yet performed another one.

    The first attempt on the towers was a failure, so they had to finish the job. And they're not done yet.

    By pacattack05, at 3:46 PM

  • That is an interesting viewpoint.

    By Todd, at 3:54 PM

  • I think the biggest difference between you and I is whether 9/11 was an inside job. That's where we disagree the most in my opinion. People say that there are infact radical islamists who want to harm us. Of course there are, because we invaded their country for no reason. We've been meddling in everyone's affairs for years now, trying to police the world, and changing the minds and cultures of people that have had those ideals for thousands of years. But we expect to impose our way on them over night. Not that our way is a bad one, but to change something so instilled in cultures that ancient is difficult.

    The telltale signs of the U.S overthrowing the world is all over the place if you can see it though. It's on the one dollar bill, and many corporations use symbols that are akin to those ideals.

    The north american union was passed without permission of the people, quietly, and the new currency...The Amero will be here soon. Having Canada and Mexico have a say into what goes on in this country will be interesting.

    By pacattack05, at 3:56 PM

  • “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

    Benjamin Franklin

    By pacattack05, at 4:05 PM

  • I have not given up an ounce of freedom. That is a misuse of Ben Franklin's quote.

    By Todd, at 4:12 PM

  • We are in Saudi Arabia because it was an American corporation that helped Saudi Arabia tap their oil reserves in the first place. The legitimate Saudi government WANTS us there. It is the radical muslims that don't. And I don't give a crap what THEY want.

    We are not taking over the world. We are, on the other hand, liberating a great many people around the world, as we have done so for decades. Because countries that are democracies are generally not countries that want to blow us up.

    There has never been so great a country on the face of the Earth as America. There has never been a country to amass so much power, and use it so little.

    By Todd, at 4:16 PM

  • Todd, what creative use of semantics - just to say "You'll the one not me" gee

    You will never hear me say this:

    You know, the one thing I would really like to see around here -- not that I think there's any chance of seeing it -- is reasoned debate free from dopiness.

    Because the more diverse the more interesting it is to me. I want to see the crazy stuff because I might see something new.   People and their political views don't sway me. I'm more interested in how they got there, the mentality behind it and whether there is an agenda or not. I shoot for the big picture.

    When I want to be with people who have the same views that I have - I join that specific group not a debate.

    By Tenaj, at 4:57 PM

  • Please stop trying to twist my meaning. You do that almost every time you post to my blog. I am a decent writer, and my point is clear. I do not need you to change my meaning.

    By Todd, at 5:12 PM

  • I find it creepy that I mentioned Jim695 on this blog response of mine, only to find out that Florida's winning number tonight was 695....hmmmm....another conspiracy?...lol

    By pacattack05, at 9:03 PM

Post a Comment

<< Home