Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Dwight D. Eisenhower’

Laura Magdalene Eisenhower (Great Granddaughter Of Past US President): ET invasion has already occurred and governments do not want us to know | Alternative

April 15, 2014 1 comment

(Before It’s News)

*This video will astound… let more light in… listen to the whole thing!

Laura Magdalene Eisenhower (Great Granddaughter Of Past US President): ET invasion has already occurred and governments do not want us to know

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Read more…

Gunny G: So, At The End of WW II, Did Gen Patton Outrank Eisenhower Or NOT !!!! (See Comments, below article, Links, Etc,) (Resurrected via the wayBack Machine…)…

December 16, 2013 1 comment
pattonpol

pattonpol (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

 

 

 

***

So, At The End of WW II, Did Gen Patton Outrank Eisenhower Or NOT !!!! (See Comments, below article, Links, Etc,)

(Resurrected via the wayBack Machine…)

 

Read more…

Did Communist Influence Lead to D-Day….. Invasion over Italy Strategy?….. “The two most ardent boosters of the Normandy invasion were Stalin and Harry Hopkins”

August 8, 2013 1 comment

Did Communist Influence Lead to D-Day Invasion over Italy Strategy?

 

Breitbart ^ | 7 Aug 2013 | Diana West

 

Posted on Thursday, August 08, 2013 9:40:45 AM by cutty

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

The two most ardent boosters of the Normandy invasion were Stalin and Harry Hopkins

 

 

Churchill famously urged that the advance on Germany continue from already-won bases in Italy and elsewhere in south-central Europe.

 

Stalin’s demand for the big U.S.-British push in northern France, however, prevailed. According to the tally of one peeved letter to the editor in the New York Times, this would put the Allies on track to open their ninth front.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, in order to gather sufficient forces for the June 1944 D-Day invasion, men and equipment, particularly landing craft, had to be withdrawn from the European continent – in Italy – to reinvade the European continent – in France.

 

In his memoir, Calculated Risk, Gen. Mark Clark, commander of U.S. forces in Italy, explains how gutting his forces in Italy in the months before D-Day stalled Allied progress against German forces. (Italy had already surrendered.) Meanwhile, the disappearance of Allied men and materiel from the battlefield completely mystified the Germans.

 

 

 

Read more…

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Letter Explaining his high esteem for General Robert E. Lee

July 29, 2013 1 comment

President Dwight Eisenhower wrote the following letter in response to one he received dated August 1, 1960, from Leon W. Scott, a dentist in New Rochelle, New York. Scott’s letter reads: August 1, 1960Dear Mr. President:At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four 4 great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.

 

Portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee, officer of the...

Portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee, officer of the Confederate Army (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.

 

The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes.

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United ...

Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

Read more…

Rank Comparison Chart ~ Eisenhower V. George S. Patton – Wikipedia.. Older Version…

July 25, 2013 4 comments

When the biography of George Patton was aired on the A&E network, a single quote perhaps best described the relationship and destinies of George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower:

“ [The] course of World War II would lead these two men to very different ends: one to the office of President of the United States and the other to a soldier’s grave on a foreign shore. ”

George S. Patton signed photo by U.S. Army

George S. Patton signed photo by U.S. Army (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Near the end of the war (February 1945), Eisenhower ranked the capabilities of U.S. generals in Europe. Omar Bradley and Carl Spaatz he rated as the best. Walter Bedell Smith was ranked number 2, and Patton number 3, followed by Mark Clark, and Lucian Truscott.

Bradley himself had been asked by Eisenhower to rank all the generals in December of 1945, and he ranked them as follows: Bedell Smith #1, Spaatz #2, Courtney Hodges #3, Elwood Quesada #4, Truscott #5, and Patton #6 (others were also ranked) [27]

These rankings probably included factors other than Patton’s success as a battle leader. As to that, Alan Axelrod in his book Patton (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) quotes German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt as stating “Patton was your best” and, surprisingly, Joseph Stalin as stating that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton’s advance across France. D’Este reports that even Hitler begrudgingly respected Patton, once calling him “that crazy cowboy general.”

Read more…

Bad Sam – Conspiracy Theories with a ring of truth to them… Re General George Patton… “At the end of the war Patton was in fact the highest ranking officer in the US Military. In peacetime the Armed Forces would fall under the authority of Patton. Eisenhower didn’t relish having Patton giving him orders.”

July 24, 2013 8 comments

.

George S. Patton signed photo by U.S. Army

George S. Patton signed photo by U.S. Army (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

…..Rank: Eisenhower had outranked Patton during war, having been appointed Supreme Commander.

At the end of the war Patton was in fact the highest ranking officer in the US Military. In peacetime the Armed Forces would fall under the authority of Patton. Eisenhower didn’t relish having Patton giving him orders.

There was widespread talk at home of Patton for President. This was bad news for the Democrats, because they had no comparable opponent. It was not good news for the Republicans though, because Patton was considered too stubborn and iron-willed to take orders from Wall Street and professional politicians. Thus, many factions viewed Patton as a threat.

Who Are The Suspects In The Death of General Patton?

The Russians were in great dread of Patton, wondering whether he would continue to wage war and cross through their lines. They remained on “alert status” until his death. Patton wrote to his wife and others that when he returned to the US he was planning to retire from the Army and try his hand a politics as a Republican. No doubt he would have reported the Russian kidnapping of 25,000 American troops, and would have taken action. The full story of these lost men only started to emerge in the 1970s, and has been documented since the fall of the USSR.

 

Read more…

(RePost) ~ President’s salute not a good idea [Progressives find something else wrong, Reagan did it]

May 24, 2013 2 comments

President’s salute not a good idea [Progressives find something else wrong, Reagan did it]

Capital Times ^ | 3-27-07 | Dave Zweifel

Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del...

Ronald Reagan wearing cowboy hat at Rancho del Cielo. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:43:39 PM by SJackson

It raised eyebrows back in 1981 when new President Ronald Reagan began returning the military salutes of the servicemen standing guard when he’d disembark from Air Force One or from Marine 1, the helicopter that would deliver him to the White House lawn.

Read more…

Bridge to Barry Movement….. ” In 1957, Senator Barry Goldwater got welcomed national exposure as a guest on the show. Manion talked Goldwater into writing a book that the he thought should be titled a “Conscience of a Conservative.” “

May 2, 2013 1 comment
Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator (AZ-R)

Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator (AZ-R) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Bridge to Goldwater Movement

The Right Frequency Blog ^ |

April 27, 2013Posted on Wednesday, May 01, 2013 4:34:38 PM by TeaPartyJakes

Douglas MacArthur

Cover of Douglas MacArthur

Clarence Manion, the retired dean of the Notre Dame School of Law, became one of the most thoughtful conservatives from the mid-1950s through the 1970s.

The “Manion Forum” began broadcasting in 1954 and continued until his death in 1979.

In 1952, Manion would head the “Democrats for Eisenhower” organization. President Dwight D. Eisenhower named him as the chairman of a commission to study how to return to states the power that the federal government had taken away under the Roosevelt and Truman administration.

gophum

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

When Manion did not back away from his support of something the administration opposed, Eisenhower fired him. So he returned to Indiana and began broadcasting. The “Manion Forum” was an early victim of the Fairness Doctrine, when in 1957, the Mutual network feared Manion’s comments on a strike in the Midwest would prompt union demands for equal time

As a pre-emptive measure, they dropped his program. He caused an uproar when he called Social Security a “ponzi scheme.” He decried the cost of Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. He also spoke up for America’s religious traditions.

In 1957, Senator Barry Goldwater got welcomed national exposure as a guest on the show. Manion talked Goldwater into writing a book that the he thought should be titled a “Conscience of a Conservative.”

The book was ghost written by L. Brent Bozell II. But the publishing industry was not receptive, so Manion founded Victor Publishing Company, and the book launched Goldwater’s forward to the 1964 Republican presidential nomination and influenced the politics for generations.

Read more…

HOW DID WE GET SO STUPID? By Jon Christian Ryter ~ We Surrendered Paper Ballots And # 2 Pencils…

April 6, 2013 2 comments

ince the infamous “temporary” Section 4 and 5 in Lyndon Johnson‘s Voting Right Act of 1965, the social progressive left has been crafting laws that would legally allow them to steal both Houses of Congress and the White House—and keep them.

Except for the eight years Dwight D. Eisenhower occupied the White House, the Democrats controlled every facet of the federal government since Mar. 6, 1933 through Johnson‘s five year reign. They had gotten used to being the boss, and they wanted to keep it that way.

On Mar. 18, 1965, acting on behalf of Dr. Martin Luther King on orders from Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield [D-MT] and Sen. Everett Dirkson [D-IL] introduced S.1564, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USC §§. 1973-1973aa-6).

The bill remained deadlocked in the House as of July 27, until two Northern moderates, Harold Daniel Donohue [D-MA] and Peter Wallace Rodino [D-NJ] cut a deal with the Senate leadership to make Section 4 and 5 of the bill temporary, limiting it to 5 years.

Johnson‘s Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach sent a confidential letter to Dr. King, seeking his approval of Donohue‘s and Rodino‘s adding a sunset clause to Section 5. Section 5 opens with a reference to Section 4(a), which should have been part of the sunset clause.

Read more…

Conservative Libertarian Outpost | MOLAN LABE!

April 5, 2013 Leave a comment

EXCERPT!!!!!

 

…..And this leads directly to the point concerning conspiracies and conspiracy theorists. Usually there is a modicum of truth tucked somewhere deeply within the sensationalism and fluff that accompanies wild, unsubstantiated charges.

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Cover of Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

 

 

Some of the theories being postulated are not only true but alarmingly so. But in order to get to that truth, one must sift through a mountain of bilge to find it.

 

In the 1991 book titled, “Behold A Pale Horse,” conspiracy theorist Milton William Cooper makes a number of outrageous claims that go far beyond the realm of veracity. He claims, for example, that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower attempted to negotiate a treaty with outer space aliens in order to prevent them from destroying the Earth. He believed that these outer space beings had infiltrated the government. He also believed that AIDS/HIV was part of a conspiracy to decrease the population of blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals.

 

 

 

Very few thinking persons would take these outlandish theories seriously. Yet within Cooper’s nightmarish fantasies he either inadvertently or deliberately inserted a conspiracy theory that has all of the markings of literal truth. In such an instance, the conspiracy is not a theory but an actuality.

 

Read more…

(Gunny G: What “The Folks” Are Saying Bout “Going Galt”! …) ~ Evan Thomas: ‘White Men Dropping Out of Workforce’ -’Going Hunting, Fishing’

December 29, 2012 Leave a comment

Former Newsweek editor Evan Thomas made a bizarre statement on PBS’s Inside Washington Friday.

big

big (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

“Unexplored story of the year: white men dropping out – dropping out of the workforce, dropping out of elections, just plain dropping out, getting social security, not doing anything, going hunting, fishing, just not in the game” (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):

Read more…

GUNNY G: WHAT IS THE MISSING WORD IN EISENHOWER’s “MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX” SPEECH, AND WHY?

December 6, 2012 Leave a comment

GUNNY G: WHAT IS THE MISSING WORD IN EISENHOWER’s “MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX” SPEECH, AND WHY?…..

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

SEE LINK BELOW FOR EXPLANATION!

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/the-military-industrial-congressional-complex/
***
THEN, HOW MANY REASONS CAN YOU THINK OF AS TO WHY IT WAS DELETED AT ALL WAY BACK THEN, AND SELDOM EVER MENTIONED NOW!

Read more…

General Edwin Walker – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia… (Interesting Chap)

August 17, 2012 2 comments

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchEdwin Anderson WalkerColEAWalker.jpgColonel Edwin A. WalkerBorn November 10, 1909Center Point, Kerr County,

Deutsch: Foto von Lee Harvey Oswald

Deutsch: Foto von Lee Harvey Oswald (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Bush with President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Bush with President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Texas, USADied October 31, 1993 aged 83Dallas, TexasAllegiance United States of AmericaService/branch United States Army seal United States ArmyYears of service 1931 – 1961Rank US-O8 insignia.svg Major GeneralCommands held 24 Infantry Division SSI.svg‎ 24th Infantry DivisionBattles/wars World War IIKorean War

Major General Edwin Anderson Walker, sometimes known as Ted Walker November 10, 1909 – October 31, 1993, was a United States Army officer who fought in World War II and the Korean War, reaching the rank of Major General.

Read more…

HIJACKING AND ABUSE OF WAR POWERS TO TAKE-DOWN THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC | Veterans Today

June 21, 2012 Leave a comment
Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

THE HIJACKING AND TAKE-DOWN OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY CAPTURING THE MONETARY PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND PROVOKING SERIAL FOREIGN WARS AS A MEANS OF EXTENDING THE HIDDEN WORLD EMPIRE OF THE “CITY OF LONDON” MOST THOUGHT WAS DIMINISHED

Read more…

Fukushima Daiichi: From Nuclear Power Plant to Nuclear Weapon #1 | Veterans Today

June 13, 2012 Leave a comment

by Anthony Hall

“Our world is faced with a crisis that has never before been envisaged in its whole existence… The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.”

English: Albert Einstein Français : Portrait d...

English: Albert Einstein Français : Portrait d’Albert Einstein (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Albert Einstein, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May, 1946

Albert Einstein’s Warning and the Ominous Fate of Fukushima Daiichi

Read more…

‘The Great Destroyer’: Obama ‘waging war’ on America

June 9, 2012 2 comments
English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the...

English: Barack Obama delivers a speech at the University of Southern California (Video of the speech) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(Editor’s note: The following is a two-part radio interview with syndicated columnist and author David Limbaugh)

Syndicated columnist David Limbaugh is back with a new book that picks up where his last critique of the Obama administration stopped. In “The Great Destroyer,” Limbaugh documents what he sees as Obama’s “war” on everything from America itself to our culture, our economy, oil and more.

 

Limbaugh cites multiple examples of how the president is diminishing America’s stature by apologizing to the world and retreating from the idea of “American Exceptionalism.”

David Limbaugh’s brand new book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation” of the United States — get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic”

Read more…

Prison Planet.com » Bilderberg Boosting Security

May 28, 2012 2 comments

Bilderberg Boosting Security

Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones’ Facebook Infowars store

Prison Planet.com

May 28, 2012

Bilderberg’s inner circle has become irate in recent days over having to beef their security preparations in anticipation of record numbers of demonstrators.

Read more…

The Military Industrial CONGRESSIONAL Complex?

May 28, 2012 2 comments

The Military Industrial CONGRESSIONAL Complex?

Note:
Reblogged 28 May 2012–Links shown may now be inoperable…
Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


We have often heard reference made to President Eisenhower’s so-called farewell warning to the nation, about the military-industrial complex, upon his leaving office in 1961.

Upon closer examination of that speech, both what it did and did not say, we find that very likely he should have referred to it, more appropriately, as the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex, ” as, he apparently really meant. At least, as the following reference would seem to infer.

“In this speech Eisenhower identifies for the first time a group called the military-industrial complex. The speech was written for him by Malcolm Moos of Johns Hopkins University. Initially Moos had used the phrase “Military Industrial Congressional Complex”. Eisenhower was advised not to link members of Congress with this conspiracy. He accepted this advice but the fact remains, Eisenhower believed that certain members of Congress were being paid by the armaments industry to maintain these high-levels of defence spending. For example, when Eisenhower left office in 1960 military spending amounted to 77% of all federal spending.”

Read more…

WE MUST FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT AGAINST THE INVASION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BY THE ROMNEYZOMBIES

May 18, 2012 Leave a comment

 

Republicans screwing America (making Santorum)

Republicans screwing America (making Santorum) (Photo credit: EN2008)

In a comment to the author of this thread, and speaking to the subject of Libertarianism, I commented in this vein that, “Republicans don’t need a Libertarian to tell them that Romney is ripping the very heart of the Republican Conscience right out of the body of the Republican Party.” (source)

The Reagan Conscience to be precise.

Read more…

What’s so bad about an open convention?

March 29, 2012 Leave a comment
Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rick Santorum, Rep. Ron Paul and even Newt Gingrich are continuing with their campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination. GOP leaders are concerned this could lead to a brokered convention — suggesting that this is something evil or immoral or improper to be avoided at all costs.

I’ve been at a brokered convention and worked for a candidate who came out of it. Even though my candidate lost the general election, it was still a far more robust and constructive process than the primary-caucus marathon of the past half-century.

n 1952, I attended the Democratic National Convention in Chicago as a young aide to the host, Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson. It had been 20 years since the Democrats had an open field. Franklin D. Roosevelt had been elected four times. Harry S. Truman ran in 1948 as an incumbent and was not running again.

As the convention opened, there was no consensus about who would be the Democratic nominee. Then Stevenson walked to the podium and delivered a welcoming speech. “What counts now,” Stevenson said, “is not just what we are against but what we are for. And who leads us is less important than what leads us — what convictions, what courage, what faith — win or lose.”

Convention delegates were so inspired that they selected a man who wasn’t running — and indeed had turned down Truman when the president had asked him to run. Impressed by Stevenson’s record and his speech, the delegates drafted him as the Democratic nominee.

Stevenson and the delegates knew it would be a tough race. Indeed, they had tried to get the Republican candidate, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, to run as a Democrat. Instead, he ran as a Republican and he, too, was nominated at an open, contested convention in Chicago.

So 60 years ago, two excellent candidates were nominated by parties that came together at a national convention that was real, substantive and constructive — instead of being what looks good on TV. In the past 36 years, however, every nomination has been decided before the conventions, which have turned into coronations.

The historic purpose of a national political convention was to bring together Americans from every state to discuss their opinions and evaluations of the issues and the candidates; to debate and weigh the arguments and then to vote and form a consensus. That is the democratic process, which served the nation well for a long time.

In 1860, for example, the young Republican Party chose Abraham Lincoln as its candidate in an open, contested process — and gave the nation a great president. Can you imagine how Lincoln would have done if he had to go through the primary process today, with its 24/7 news and demand for telegenic candidates?

Political primaries were designed to take the nominating process away from the political “bosses” and instead give the choice of candidates to the “people.” This is a noble idea. But it failed because it rests on the false assumption that most voters would turn out and participate in primary elections.

Read more…

Beware the Brokered Convention (It would guarantee 0′s Reelection)

February 23, 2012 Leave a comment

Politico is a journal subscribed to by none but political junkies, and most of those are liberal. So, when this serious publication starts talking about a brokered convention for the GOP in Tampa next August, beware!

General Dwight D. Eisenhower won a first-ballot nomination in 1952. But there had been a prolonged and bitter floor fight over convention rules. Supporters of conservative Sen. Robert A. Taft (“Mr. Republican”) charged that they had been unfairly denied delegates by Ike’s manipulative Eastern Establishment backers. Had Ike not been the odds-on favorite to sweep the nation after twenty years of Democratic Party rule, the Republicans might well have remained angrier at each other than at their rivals.

Even so, Ike felt he needed to smooth ruffled feathers of the party’s conservative base. So he named then-Sen. Richard M. Nixon of California as his vice presidential running mate. Nixon was offered to conservatives because he had made a name for himself going after Communists in the State Department. He pursued New Dealer Alger Hiss, against whom ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers had so heroically testified. Denying all, Hiss went to prison for perjury.

That Richard Nixon would go on to become president and to betray Taiwan in his famous “Opening Up” of Communist China could not have been imagined in any of those 1952 Republican delegates’ wildest dreams. That he would be forced to resign in the face of impeachment stuns us even now.

The consequences for the nation of that 1952 “brokered” convention have been vast. When Nixon went down in 1974, thousands of “Watergate babies” were swept into office. These very liberal Democrats left a record of radical social and economic policies that still haunts us.

A more recent example of a brokered convention might be the Republican National Convention of 1980, in Detroit . Former Gov. Ronald Reagan had swept the primaries and caucuses that year and his nomination for president, after New Hampshire , was never in doubt.

But who would be his running mate? Reagan was then the oldest man ever nominated for president, so Number Two could easily have become Number One.

Read more…

President Eisenhower had three secret meetings with aliens, former Pentagon consultant claims

February 15, 2012 Leave a comment
Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United ...

Image via Wikipedia

Former American President Dwight D. Eisenhower had three secret meetings with aliens, a former US government consultant has claimed.

The 34th President of the United States met the extra terrestrials at a remote air base in New Mexico in 1954, according to lecturer and author Timothy Good.

Eisenhower and other FBI officials are said to have organised the showdown with the space creatures by sending out ‘telepathic messages’.

Read more…

WAS GENERAL PATTON MURDERED? ~ “…At the end of the war Patton was in fact the highest ranking officer in the US Military. In peacetime the Armed Forces would fall under the authority of Patton…”

December 18, 2011 4 comments

Rank: Eisenhower had outranked Patton during war, having been appointed Supreme Commander. At the end of the war Patton was in fact the highest ranking officer in the US Military. In peacetime the Armed Forces would fall under the authority of Patton.

WHAT WOULD PATTON SAY?

Image by Tumbleweed:-) via Flickr

Eisenhower didn’t relish having Patton giving him orders. There was widespread talk at home of Patton for President. This was bad news for the Democrats, because they had no comparable opponent. It was not good news for the Republicans though, because Patton was considered too stubborn and iron-willed to take orders from Wall Street and professional politicians. Thus, many factions viewed Patton as a threat.”

Read more…

Gunny G: Some Little Known History Regarding The “R” Party! (By: Alan Stang!) (CLICK THE DAWG!)

November 18, 2011 Leave a comment

Lost Its Way”?

"Lost Its Way"?
Some Little Known History Regarding The “R” Party! (By: Alan Stang!)
(CLICK THE DAWG!)
**********
Hey, See the Reader Responses on each article,
they are gems in themselves!

**********

http://i46.tinypic.com/2rptut4.jpg
**********
For Various Reasons,Gunny G
Now Posting To Three Blogs…
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com

and…
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/

and
http://spotgunnyg.blogspot.com/
**********

**********

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang

November 9, 2011 1 comment

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START

by Alan Stang
February 1, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.”

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small gang of wealthy Communists – the League of Just Men – hired for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the Communists would do.

EXCERPT ~ Click Link below…

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/republican-party-red-from-the-start-by-alan-stang-2/

*****

*****

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

October 19, 2011 Leave a comment

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL):

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START

by Alan Stang

February 1, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952.

We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.”

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red…..

EXCERPT

*****

Posted by Gunny G

via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G ~ YES.1984+ IS UPON US.RIGHT NOW! : REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL).

Papers Reveal Evolution of Term “Military-Industrial Complex”

October 18, 2011 Leave a comment

Papers released to the public on December 10 by the Eisenhower Presidential Library appear to show that as America’s 34th President prepared his farewell address to the nation, he toyed with several options before coming up with the term “military-industrial complex” to describe his supposed fears of a highly placed network of powerful groups and individuals driving the nation’s foreign policy.

The previously unseen papers came in the form of drafts of Mr. Eisenhower’s farewell speech found among other papers at a northern Minnesota cabin owned by Malcolm Moos, former University of Minnesota president and one-time speech writer for Mr. Eisenhower. Moos’ son discovered the papers, covered with pine cones and other debris at the remote cabin, and turned them over to the Eisenhower library in October.

“We are just so fortunate that these papers were discovered,” said Karl Weissenbach, director of the library. “We were finally able to fill in the gaps of the address. For a number of years it was apparent that there were gaps.”

In part, the papers appear to show the evolution of the term “military-industrial complex” coined by the President and used for years afterward in foreign policy debate. During the nearly two years it took the president, chief speech writer Moos, and even Mr. Eisenhower’s brother, Milton, to hammer out the text of the speech, the now-historic term evolved from “war-based industrial complex,” to “vast military-industrial complex,” and finally to simply “military-industrial complex.”…..

EXCERPT

via Papers Reveal Evolution of Term “Military-Industrial Complex”.

Robert Taft – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 18, 2011 Leave a comment

In 1952 Taft made his third and final try for the GOP nomination; it also proved to be his strongest effort. He had the solid backing of the party’s conservative wing. Former Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett (father of billionaire Warren Buffett) served as his campaign manager.[13] With Dewey no longer an active candidate many political pundits regarded him as the frontrunner. However, the race changed when Dewey and other GOP moderates were able to convince Dwight D. Eisenhower, the most popular general of World War II, to run for the nomination. According to biographer Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower agreed to run in part because of his fear that Taft’s non-interventionist views in foreign policy might unintentionally benefit the Soviet Union in the Cold War.[citation needed]

The fight between Taft and Eisenhower for the GOP nomination was one of the closest and most bitter in American political history. When the Republican Convention opened in Chicago in July 1952, Taft and Eisenhower were neck-and-neck in delegate votes, and the nomination was still up for grabs as neither had a majority. On the convention’s first day, Eisenhower’s managers complained that Taft’s forces had unfairly denied Eisenhower supporters delegate slots in several Southern states, including Texas, where the state chairman, Orville Bullington, was committed to Taft, and also in Georgia. The Eisenhower partisans proposed to remove pro-Taft delegates in these states and replace them with pro-Eisenhower delegates; they called their proposal “Fair Play”. Although Taft angrily denied having stolen any delegate votes, the convention voted to support Fair Play 658 to 548, and the Texans voted 33-5 for Eisenhower as a result. In addition, several uncommitted state delegations, such as Michigan and Pennsylvania, agreed to support Eisenhower. There were rumors after the convention that the chairmen of these uncommitted states, such as Arthur Summerfield of Michigan, were secretly pressured by Dewey and the GOP’s Eastern Establishment to support Eisenhower; however, these rumors were never proved. (Summerfield did become Ike’s Postmaster General following the election.)

via Robert Taft – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

October 12, 2011 Leave a comment

Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.”

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small gang of wealthy Communists – the League of Just Men – hired for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the Communists would do…..

EXCERPT…..

via REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL).

GUNNY G: HAS THE “R” PARTY LOST ITS WAY?

September 30, 2011 Leave a comment

GUNNY G: HAS THE “R” PARTY LOST ITS WAY?

GUNNY G: HAS THE “R” PARTY LOST ITS WAY?
(EXCERPT)

Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. 

We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course.

The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration.



The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.”

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism.

From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red. 

Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named Karl Marx, whom a small gang of wealthy Communists – the League of Just Men – hired for the purpose. The Manifesto told its adherents and its victims what the Communists would do………..

MORE…..
Alan Stang: red From The Start…..

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/republican-party-red-from-the-start-by-alan-stang-2/
*****


**********
Hey, See the Reader Responses on each article,
they are gems in themselves!

**********

http://i46.tinypic.com/2rptut4.jpg
**********
Gunny G: BLOGGER 1984 +
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com

and…
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/

**********

**********
**********

Posted by Gunny G

That Presidential Look: The Bad, the Beautiful, and Voting-Booth Realities

September 12, 2011 Leave a comment

While there was more than one reason why John McCain was a long shot to win the 2008 general election, a big one was something almost no one talked seriously about: appearance.

That is to say, when was the last time an old-looking, white-haired, half-bald man won the presidency?

If you think this piece will be satire or fluff, think again. It rather will be very serious commentary about a very silly — but painfully real — phenomenon.

When people do discuss looks’ impact on presidential fortunes, they usually treat the matter as a joke; we may hear, for instance, how a candidate must have “great hair” to enjoy rarefied commander-in-chief air. But if professional pundits and politics wonks think it’s beneath them to wax anything but comedic on this issue, the joke is on them. After all, this is the age of American Idol.

To answer my earlier question, the last time Americans elected a bald president was 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower defeated similarly hair follicle-deprived Adlai Stevenson. Not coincidentally, this was just prior to the full flowering of the television age.

Of course, it’s tragic that people are so influenced by superficials, but it’s nothing new. It’s little different from when a man marries for looks or a woman for money. And the fact is that, unless and until we can get election turnouts down to five percent, having fatally un-presidential looks will doom even a stellar statesman’s chances.

Don’t like it? Talk to the people who think that rallying the idiot vote somehow makes our republic stronger.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com …

via That Presidential Look: The Bad, the Beautiful, and Voting-Booth Realities.

1932 Bonus March ~ (MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower) Excerpt

July 29, 2011 3 comments

On the morning of July 28, forty protesters tried to reclaim an evacuated building in downtown Washington scheduled for demolition. A riot erupted when city police officers and agents from the U.S. Treasury Department tried to evict some of the marchers. The city’s police chief, Pellham Glassford, a veteran himself sympathetic to the marchers, was knocked down by a brick. Glassford’s assistant suffered a fractured skull. When rushed by a crowd, two other policemen opened fire. Two of the marchers were killed. As the situation spiraled out of control, the District of Columbia asked President Herbert Hoover to send federal troops to help restore order. The request noted that it was “impossible for the Police Department to maintain law and order except by the use of firearms, which will make the situation a dangerous one.”

President Hoover knew he had to curb the escalating violence. Hoover reluctantly agreed, but only after limiting Major General Douglas MacArthur’s authority. MacArthur’s troops would be unarmed. The mission was to escort the marchers unharmed to camps along the Anacostia River. He gave the order for Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur to remove the approximately 3,500 veterans, many with their wives and children, who refused to leave. A force of about 600 – cavalrymen and infantrymen with a few tanks – advanced to the scene under the leadership of Chief of Staff MacArthur in person, two other generals, and, among junior officers, two whose names would in due course become much more familiar, Majors Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton, Jr.

MacArthur ignored the president’s orders, taking no prisoners and driving tattered protesters from their encampment. No shots were fired, but many were injured by bricks, clubs and bayonets. After Hoover ordered a halt to the army’s march, MacArthur again took things into his own hands, violently clearing the Anacostia campsite, killing three marchers and wounding many.

One of the first federal officers to arrive in Washington, D.C., was Major George S. Patton. His cavalry troops met up with infantry at the Ellipse, near the White House. Patton and the federal troops, equipped with gas masks, bayonets and sabers, marched up Pennsylvania Avenue, firing gas grenades and charging and subduing the angry crowd. Later that night, Patton and the federal troops cleared out the marchers’ camp in Anacostia, with some tents and shacks catching fire in the process. Although there are conflicting reports on which side started the fires, some of the marchers’ shacks burned down. By the following morning, most marchers had left Washington, but the incident left bitter memories and affected Patton deeply. He called it the “most distasteful form of service” and later wrote several papers on how federal troops could restore order quickly with the least possible bloodshed.

In the end, the presence of federal troops effectively ended the bonus march. The troops cleaned up the situation near the Capitol, and then proceeded with equal efficiency to clear out all of the marchers from the District of Columbia.

The burning shacks of the veterans’ shantytowns made vivid news photos. A national uproar ensued. In far off Albany, New York, Democratic presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt grasped the political implications instantly. “Well,” he told a friend on hearing the news, “this elects me.” Herbert Hoover said at the start of an uphill reelection campaign: “We are opposed by six million unemployed, 10,000 bonus marchers, and 10 cent corn. Is it any wonder that the prospects are dark?”

via 1932 Bonus March.

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

June 19, 2011 Leave a comment

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL):

“Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952.

We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course.

The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.””

Posted by Gunny G at Sunday, June 19, 2011

via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984(+): REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang � ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984 ~ (BLOG & EMAIL).

Alan Stang — Why Does the Government Fear Armed Veterans? – Part 1

June 6, 2011 Leave a comment

Alan Stang — Why Does the Government Fear Armed Veterans? – Part 1

Alan Stang — Why Does the Government Fear Armed Veterans? – Part 1:

“Of course, these are not my ideas. I can’t take credit for them. Remember that the nation’s birth certificate – the Declaration of Independence – says that whenever government becomes oppressive, whenever it tries to deny their rights, the people under it have the unalienable right to rise up and cast it off, even “abolish” it.

So, I write with the authority and under the protection of the President of the United States, because the man who wrote the Declaration later became President.

Indeed, he also wrote that every generation or so, the people should rise up and enjoy a bloody revolution, in which the tree of liberty is refreshed “with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” presumably to remind everyone who has the power.

Many Americans know this and believe it, but I have yet to see a piece by some expert explaining what

via BLOGGER.1984.GUNNY.G: Alan Stang — Why Does the Government Fear Armed Veterans? – Part 1.

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang

April 17, 2011 Leave a comment

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang

REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START

by Alan Stang

February 1, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has “lost its way” and “gone wrong.” It has “diverged” from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower’s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today’s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn’t “go wrong,” didn’t “go left.”

It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.

Why? In 1848, Communists rose in revolution across Europe, united by a document prepared for the purpose, entitled Manifesto of the Communist Party. Its author was a degenerate parasite named…………………………….

via Gunny G: BLOGGER 1984 +: REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START by Alan Stang.

Who’s Polarizing America?

March 3, 2011 1 comment

 

American politics just keeps getting more polarized. Be assured that Obama wants it that way. I argue in Radical-in-Chief that Obama’s long-term hope is to divide America along class lines roughly speaking, tax payers versus tax beneficiaries.

Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court at his 2010 State of the Union address, his offensive against the Chamber of Commerce, his exhortation to Hispanics to punish their enemies, and several similar moves were all efforts to jump-start a populist movement of the left.

Like his socialist organizing mentors, Obama believes that a country polarized along class lines will eventually realign American politics sharply to the left. Yet the entire strategy is based on the need for an activated, populist movement of the left. So far, Obama has failed to create such a movement. His expensive economic agenda has provoked a populist counter-movement of the right instead: Obama’s nightmare.

Now, however, Obama may belatedly be getting his wish. The very success of the Tea Party is calling forth an opposing movement of the left. Obama’s exhortations may have failed to polarize the country along class lines, but his policies have finally provoked the long-sought battle.

The once-dormant legions of Obama’s group, Organizing for America, have now been activated. This is the moment they were created for.Excerpt Read more at eppc.org …

Read more…

American Minute – Nov. 9 – Dwight Eisenhower on the Spiritual Foundation of America

November 9, 2010 1 comment

On NOVEMBER 9, 1954, President Eisenhower addressed the NationalConference on the Spiritual Foundation of American Democracy at theSheraton-Carlton Hotel, Washington D.C.: “Now Dr. Lowry said something about my having certain convictions as to a God in Heaven and an Almighty power. Well, I don’t think anyone needs a great deal of credit for believing in what seems to me to be obvious…

This relationship between a spiritual faith…and our form of government is…so obvious that we should really not need to identify a man as unusual because he recognizes it.”Eisenhower continued: “Our whole theory of government finally expressed in our Declaration…said…Man is endowed by his Creator… When you come back to it, there is just one thing…man is worthwhile because he was born in the image of his God…

Democracy is nothing in the world but a spiritual conviction…that each of us is enormously valuable, because of a certain standing before our own God.”Eisenhower concluded:

Read more…

Gunny G: Ike’s Missing Word…The Military Industrial “CONGRESSIONAL” Complex

October 4, 2010 4 comments

Saturday, April 7, 2007

Gunny G: Ike’s Missing Word…The Military Industrial “CONGRESSIONAL” Complex


We have often heard reference made to President Eisenhower’s so-called farewell warning to the nation, about the military-industrial complex, upon his leaving office in 1961.

Upon closer examination of that speech, both what it did and did not say, we find that very likely he should have referred to it, more appropriately, as the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex, ” as, he apparently really meant. At least, as the following reference would seem to infer.

“In this speech Eisenhower identifies for the first time a group called the military-industrial complex. The speech was written for him by Malcolm Moos of Johns Hopkins University. Initially Moos had used the phrase “Military Industrial Congressional Complex”. Eisenhower was advised not to link members of Congress with this conspiracy. He accepted this advice but the fact remains, Eisenhower believed that certain members of Congress were being paid by the armaments industry to maintain these high-levels of defence spending. For example, when Eisenhower left office in 1960 military spending amounted to 77% of all federal spending.”

R. W. Gaines
~~~~~
(see below)
************
****************

*******************************************************************
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=824

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=824

Part 2: Military Industrial Complex

Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech as president on 17th January, 1961, was completely out of character.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen…

Read more…

The Military Industrial CONGRESSIONAL Complex? (Gunny G: Ike’s Missing Word Speech!)

April 7, 2007 4 comments


We have often heard reference made to President Eisenhower’s so-called farewell warning to the nation, about the military-industrial complex, upon his leaving office in 1961.

Upon closer examination of that speech, both what it did and did not say, we find that very likely he should have referred to it, more appropriately, as the “Military Industrial CONGRESSIONAL Complex, ” as, he apparently really meant. At least, as the following reference would seem to infer.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait.

Dwight D. Eisenhower photo portrait. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“In this speech Eisenhower identifies for the first time a group called the military-industrial complex. The speech was written for him by Malcolm Moos of Johns Hopkins University. Initially Moos had used the phrase “Military Industrial Congressional Complex”. Eisenhower was advised not to link members of Congress with this conspiracy. He accepted this advice but the fact remains, Eisenhower believed that certain members of Congress were being paid by the armaments industry to maintain these high-levels of defence spending. For example, when Eisenhower left office in 1960 military spending amounted to 77% of all federal spending.”

Read more…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,086 other followers