For the past 60 years most blacks bought into LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most don't know 19 US democrat senators filibustered it. LBJ had to go the the minority GOP to get the votes to pass it. They bought into what LBJ and other black politicians sold. All the while, the dems had no intentions of shedding their racism and power.
On three separate days over the past week, The Post saw junkies brazenly smoking crack pipes on West 43rd Street, drug dealers peddling their wares within eyeshot of cops, hobos conked out wherever…
A New York man was sentenced to three months in prison this week for making threatening phone calls to Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s congressional office in Washington. Joseph Morelli, 51, …
Miguel Cortez, 19, was ordered held on $500,000 bail in the alleged gruesome death of the 42-year-old victim on the waterfront at West 158th Street and Riverside Drive in Washington Heights.
Miguel Cortez, 19, was ordered held on $500,000 bail in the alleged gruesome death of the 42-year-old victim on the waterfront at West 158th Street and Riverside Drive in Washington Heights.
Politicians only care about their next donor infusion of cash. In Maui, they are doing the bidding of the island's billionaires and national politicians who despise private ownership of anything except what the pols own.
When did NWO MIC Deep State propaganda become opinion?
Anyone can listen to the WHO, WEF, MSM et al and validate their 'opinion'.
It's like the Russian Ukraine SMO. The US position is Russia is bad, evil, wicked, mean, and nasty, never mind that the US has not only violated the Minsk agreement, but expanded NATO. The truth is the opposite. (NATO = US = NATO)
You can come here and spout the US position, but we know you are spreading false information, i.e., don't pee on my neck and tell me it's rain.
It's the same as what you espouse as your 'opinion'. We know you're peeing on our neck and we're calling you on it, i.e., you're wasting everyone's time here....
to wit:
"Not One Inch": A Brief Review Of The Archives On NATO Expansion
Yet U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the conflict “was never about NATO enlargement” or “about some threat to Russia’s security.” Blinken also claims that Russia’s assertion that it was promised NATO would not spread eastward after the collapse of the USSR is false.
So who is telling the truth? Let’s look at the record.
On Bet-David’s June 28 PBD Podcast, Macgregor explained that Putin has “been talking at least for 15 years about his opposition to the movement of NATO to his borders. He’s made it very clear that he regarded it as a threat. One of the reasons he moved into Crimea was that he saw that becoming a NATO naval base principally for the U.S. Navy, obviously in the Black Sea. So, he moved on that first and then said, look, this has got to stop.”
Declassified documents in the National Security Archive at George Washington University show that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, starting in 1990, was given many assurances by U.S. and European leaders that they would not expand NATO eastward to Russia. “Not one inch eastward,” said then-Secretary of State James Baker.
Ukraine, the cradle of Kievan Rus (Russia), is on Russia’s western border, and western Ukraine borders Poland, Hungary, and Romania.
The archives document that one of the earliest assurances to Gorbachev came from a speech by the German foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, in January 1990. In a cable to Washington, DC, the U.S. Embassy stated that Genscher made clear that NATO should rule out an “expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e., moving it closer to Soviet borders.”
What you say is all true. You are just ignoring the fact that the world has continued to turn since Genscher (assuming you believe that the world is a sphere and not flat). The former Soviet republics, such as the Baltic States, have had to deal with constant blackmail and threats from Russia since their independence. It was therefore their decision to approach NATO and NATO accepted them, which I think was the right thing to do. NATO did not go on a shopping spree and force them to join NATO. And no promises made by politicians who are long out of office should be binding in the future after things have changed fundamentally. That is the way of the world. The U.S. should know that best of all.
I do not believe we can afford to overlook someone's past when choosing someone who might be president, who could wield the power to become a tyrant. With Swami, just a few months ago he was preaching the dangers of man-made global warming. But since he has a different audience now, he goes onstage at the debate and declares it a hoax. No reasonable person would trust an answer in that scenario. It's one thing after another like that with him. But because Maga campaign accepts him (of course they do, he's running interference for Trump), most here won't question him, although I can't imagine a more obvious fraud.
Then there's Maga. He adopted, coddled, attempted to join, and did everything he could to pacify the deep state. Some here have made the claim he's "learned his lesson", a refrain I see frequently on Twitter. But what is the real evidence? He's still attaching himself to one DSer after another, once again to Ronna Romney today. And he's still touting the vax. Is there a more blatant example of someone who hasn't learned anything?
I can't imagine what more Trump could do to show that he isn't trustworthy. If it isn't a cult, it's the closest thing to it I've seen in politics. Trump laughed at and admitted this himself in his first campaign, when he joked he could commit murder and would still have his supporters. Time has proven him 100% correct about that.
For the past 60 years most blacks bought into LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most don't know 19 US democrat senators filibustered it. LBJ had to go the the minority GOP to get the votes to pass it. They bought into what LBJ and other black politicians sold. All the while, the dems had no intentions of shedding their racism and power.
I got into a discussion with a African American coworker, and what they say is the great migration of AA from south to north in the 40s, 50s, and 60s forced the racism out of the Democratic Party and ended up in the Republican Party.
Example is most of the Georgia Republican Party leaders like kemp, newt, and others were once democrats.
Not saying this is factual, but there’s no trying to convince a AA democrat of this false belief. Even the video you referenced.
For the past 60 years most blacks bought into LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most don't know 19 US democrat senators filibustered it. LBJ had to go the the minority GOP to get the votes to pass it. They bought into what LBJ and other black politicians sold. All the while, the dems had no intentions of shedding their racism and power.
If the DC establishment approves, I disapprove If the big donors approve, I disapprove If the DOJ FBI approve, I disapprove If the media approves, I disapprove I want a rebel warrior I want the fiercest fighter I want a wrecking ball to destroy the Deep State
When did NWO MIC Deep State propaganda become opinion?
Anyone can listen to the WHO, WEF, MSM et al and validate their 'opinion'.
It's like the Russian Ukraine SMO. The US position is Russia is bad, evil, wicked, mean, and nasty, never mind that the US has not only violated the Minsk agreement, but expanded NATO. The truth is the opposite. (NATO = US = NATO)
You can come here and spout the US position, but we know you are spreading false information, i.e., don't pee on my neck and tell me it's rain.
It's the same as what you espouse as your 'opinion'. We know you're peeing on our neck and we're calling you on it, i.e., you're wasting everyone's time here....
to wit:
"Not One Inch": A Brief Review Of The Archives On NATO Expansion
Yet U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the conflict “was never about NATO enlargement” or “about some threat to Russia’s security.” Blinken also claims that Russia’s assertion that it was promised NATO would not spread eastward after the collapse of the USSR is false.
So who is telling the truth? Let’s look at the record.
On Bet-David’s June 28 PBD Podcast, Macgregor explained that Putin has “been talking at least for 15 years about his opposition to the movement of NATO to his borders. He’s made it very clear that he regarded it as a threat. One of the reasons he moved into Crimea was that he saw that becoming a NATO naval base principally for the U.S. Navy, obviously in the Black Sea. So, he moved on that first and then said, look, this has got to stop.”
Declassified documents in the National Security Archive at George Washington University show that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, starting in 1990, was given many assurances by U.S. and European leaders that they would not expand NATO eastward to Russia. “Not one inch eastward,” said then-Secretary of State James Baker.
Ukraine, the cradle of Kievan Rus (Russia), is on Russia’s western border, and western Ukraine borders Poland, Hungary, and Romania.
The archives document that one of the earliest assurances to Gorbachev came from a speech by the German foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, in January 1990. In a cable to Washington, DC, the U.S. Embassy stated that Genscher made clear that NATO should rule out an “expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e., moving it closer to Soviet borders.”
Not only is everything in this post verifiably false but it’s also communist propaganda. Sadly, you know that and just don’t care. Supporting monsters is your schtick.
Throwing in Bet- David and MacGregor, two other proven liars, is just icing on the cake for how you commie stans operate.
The only thing surprising about your post is that you didn’t also cite Scott Ritter.
On Thursday The Gateway Pundit reported on the Georgia Secretary of State Office’s lie that helped rookie District Attorney Fani Willis open an investigation on President Trump back in February 2021.
The left doesn’t realize it’s all a scam. We should be slowly turning to more natural gas. They keep bitching about carbon when ice samples show we are at a low in history. In fact, we are closer to carbon being too low to sustain life than we are having too much.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.