Truman Over The Clintons With His Hands Tied and Blindfolded

This blog post recognizes what I did a few months ago. How pathetic both Clintons are compared to Truman, who came with extensive common sense and extraordinary integrity.

[From article]
‘[Former President] Truman had numerous offers from large corporations for work, but turned them all down, stating:
“I knew that they were not interested in hiring Harry Truman, the person, but what they wanted to hire was the former President of the United States. I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and the dignity of the office of the Presidency.”’
When reading this passage, one cannot help but think of the stark contrast set by Bill Clinton and his wife as Secretary of State. Clinton has coarsened grievously both the American Presidency and Post-Presidency. Truman was truly from another era of honor and respectability. Today, half the country wants to return Bill and Hillary to the White House despite their overt faults and derelictions.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/clinton_fails_the_truman_test.html

January 17, 2016
Clinton fails the Truman Test
By Jerome J. Schmitt

Buchanan Accepts White House Anti Israel Policies, Ignores Muslim Nations Whose Goal Is To Destroy Israel

The difference between, Eisenhower, Truman and the current White House is that both Ike and Harry did not support the Muslim campaign to destroy Israel. Buchanan omits that element from his discussion, which makes his conclusion specious. 

Here's an update. Russia and China are lobbying Congress to support Iran agreement.

http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-urges-supporters-of-iran-deal-lobby-congress-for-
it/2888384.html 

and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ambassadors-press-case-for-iran-nuclear-deal-in-congress/2015/08/06/9f46cae8-3c70-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

and this report of Iranian General visiting Russia defying sanctions

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/06/exclusive-quds-force-commander-soleimani-visited-moscow-met-russian-leaders-in/?intcmp=hphz09 



[From article]
The day the deal was signed, using what The Washington Post calls “stark apocalyptic language,” Bibi accused John Kerry of giving the mullahs a “sure path to a nuclear weapon” and a “cash bonanza of hundreds of billions of dollars … to pursue its aggression and terror.”
Bibi has since inspired and led the campaign to get Congress to kill the deal, the altarpiece of the Obama presidency.



Israel Ambassador Ron Dermer, a former Republican operative now cast in the role of “Citizen Genet,” has intensively lobbied the Hill to get Congress to pass a resolution of rejection.
If that resolution passes, as it appears it will, Obama will veto it.
Then Israel, the Israeli lobby AIPAC, and all its allies and auxiliaries in the think tanks and on op-ed pages will conduct a full-court press to have Congress override the Obama veto and kill his nuclear deal.
Has Bibi, have the Israelis, considered what would happen should they succeed? Certainly, there would be rejoicing in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and Bibi would be crowned King of Capitol Hill.



But they will have humiliated an American president by crushing him by two-to-one in his own legislature. Such a defeat could break the Obama presidency and force the resignation of John Kerry, who would have become a laughing stock in international forums.
[. . .]
Kerry warned that if Congress rejects the deal, “Israel could end up being more isolated and more blamed.”



http://buchanan.org/blog/obama-v-bibi-fight-to-the-finish-16336

Obama v. Bibi — Fight to the Finish
Friday - August 7, 2015 at 12:02 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Alger Hiss vs. Whittaker Chambers Revisited

Alger Hiss (1950)


Whittaker Chambers

[From article]
Communism was in its ascendancy at the time, and Chambers ascended with it. As a writer and true believer, he sufficiently impressed his superiors that they asked him to go underground in Washington D.C. and organize a high level ring of federal bureaucrats working on behalf of the Soviet Union.
Prominent among those bureaucrats was Hiss. A Harvard Law graduate, Hiss would rise through the ranks to become a special assistant in the State Department, an adviser to President Roosevelt at Yalta, and one of the principal architects of the United Nations. After World War II, he was named president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
[. . .]
Chambers had chosen to change sides in the great ideological conflict of his age and of ours, a conflict he described as “Almighty Man vs Almighty God.” Stalin’s lethal, large-scale purges in the late 1930s helped open Chambers’ eyes.
Upon rejecting the “left’s vision of Man without God,” Chambers came to see Christianity as the one force powerful enough to resist communism.
[. . .]
Chambers felt obliged to let the Roosevelt administration know how thoroughly its ranks had been infested with high-level Soviet agents. He met with Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle and shared his information. Berle’s efforts to alert his superiors went nowhere, and Chambers retreated into anonymity for the next nine years.
In 1948, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) came calling. Now settled in as senior editor of Time magazine, Chambers had little desire to expose his own past or to testify against his friend, but his conscience obliged him to do so. Hiss made the ordeal much harder by denying he ever knew Chambers. The media believed Hiss, and President Harry Truman promptly dismissed the case as a “red herring”
Indeed, so well esteemed was Hiss by the media and the liberal establishment that HCUA would have dropped the case altogether had not freshman Congressman Richard Nixon convinced his colleagues that Hiss was lying. For this breach of political etiquette, Nixon would not be forgiven.
[. . .]
Hiss would eventually be convicted of perjury -- the statute of limitations having expired on espionage -- and would serve nearly four years in a federal prison.
[. . .]
It was, not invariably, but in general, the “best people” who were for Alger Hiss and who were prepared to go to any length to protect and defend him. It was the enlightened and the powerful, the clamorous proponents of the open mind and the common man, who snapped their minds shut in a pro-Hiss psychosis, of a kind which, in an individual patient, means the simple failure of the ability to distinguish between reality and unreality, and, in a nation, is a warning of the end.
I came across this paragraph days after the media unloaded on Giuliani for daring to say the obvious about the Harvard Law grad in the White House, namely that he does not love America, at least under any useful definition of the word “love.” When Giuliani followed up, saying, “From the time he was nine years old, he was influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist,” he was introducing evidence to people who had long since snapped their minds shut about Obama. Most, even in the media, had likely never even heard of Davis.
[. . .]
As to why our progressive betters respond as they do to the truth tellers in their midst, Chambers nailed that as well:
The simple fact is that when I took up my little sling and aimed at Communism, I also hit something else. What I hit was the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation for two decades.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/what_whittaker_chambers_tells_us_about_the_age_of_obama.html

March 2, 2015
What Whittaker Chambers Tells Us about the Age of Obama
By Jack Cashill

Gov. Palin Has Common Sense, Loves America, Not a Speechifier

Gov. Palin is Not A Speechifier

Byron York appears to prefer a slick black con man who uses words as needed, lying and lying some more, to suit his needs solely for the moment. Palin may not be the most polished speaker but she admires the nation, and has lots of common sense. Two qualities which are lacking at the White House these days and in many other offices in and out of government. Truman used to call politicians like Obama speechifiers. He equates Palin to Donald Trump, who is a successful builder, not a speechifier.  But the focus as usual is on discrediting Palin.

[From article]
Palin should leave the field to those who are in possession of genuine political aspirations, and she should refrain from treating the Republican party as if it were a little more than a convenient vehicle for her private ambition. In the meantime, conservatives who are finally cottoning on to the ruse should recognize that this Iowa sojourn was not an aberration or a blip, but the foreordained culmination of a slow and unseemly descent into farce that began almost immediately after Barack Obama was elected in 2008. So Sarah Palin has become Amy Winehouse? Of course she has. How else exactly was this going to end?

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397238/sarah-palin-slips-self-parody-charles-c-w-cooke

JANUARY 26, 2015 6:09 PM
Sarah Palin Slips into Self-Parody
Her recent performance in Iowa should disqualify her from any role in the GOP going forward.
By Charles C. W. Cooke

Socialists and The Marches On Washington

[From article]
Of the many reasons why socialism never became a major political tendency in the United States, as it did in Europe, is that working people—more precisely, white working men—gained the franchise here during the Jacksonian era, well before socialism had developed into a mass movement in Europe or America or anyplace else. In Europe, by contrast, it was chiefly the agitation of socialist parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that led to the creation of universal manhood, and in some places womanhood, suffrage. Socialists brought ordinary Europeans the vote, which powerfully legitimated socialism for tens of millions of Europeans.
No equivalent legitimation happened in America. While there had been socialist movements and sects throughout the 19th century, the American Socialist Party wasn’t founded until 1901.
http://prospect.org/article/socialists-who-made-march-washington

The Socialists Who Made the March on Washington
HAROLD MEYERSON
AUGUST 23, 2013

Democrats No Friends Of Jews, Book Review

[From Book Review]
 no president ever found himself positioned, at a key juncture in
history, to do more on behalf of the Jewish people—and did less. This,
too, is well known to those who’ve cared to look, historians and
presidential confidantes alike. Indeed, FDR’s betrayal of the
Jews—there is no other word for it—is even the basis of a superb
novel, City Journal contributing editor Stefan Kanfer’s Fear Itself.
[. . .]
Hoover bravely took up the cause of Europe’s Jews.
[. . .]
along with such other leading Republicans as Wendell Willkie and Clare
Boothe Luce, [Hoover] embraced the cause of Jewish statehood,
resulting in a pro-Zionist plank in the 1944 Republican platform.
[. . .]
in 1944, 90 percent of Jewish voters went for FDR.
[. . .]
Harry S. Truman was also strongly anti-Semitic, and in fact expressed
himself on Jews in even coarser terms than his predecessor. He
referred to New York as “kike town,” for instance, and reacted to
pressure from American Jews as he wrestled with whether to recognize
the soon-to-be-born Jewish state by snapping: “Jesus Christ couldn’t
please them when he was here on earth, so how could anyone expect me
to have any luck?”

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/bc1023hs.html

HARRY STEIN
The Democrats’ Jewish Problem
A new book revisits an uncomfortable—and ongoing—history.
23 October 2012
Herbert Hoover and the Jews: The Origins of the “Jewish Vote” and
Bipartisan Support for Israel, by Sonja Schoepf Wentling and Rafael
Medoff (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 238 pp., $15)

Three Presidents

THREE PRESIDENTS (both parties)...

with the strength to do what was right

for AMERICA

No one in either party today has the courage to do this.
Three Presidents...














What did Presidents Hoover, Truman, & Eisenhower have in common?


During the great depression, Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.

In 1954, Dwight Eisenhower deported 13-M Mexicans.The program was called Operation Wetback. It was done so WWII & Korean veterans would have a better chance at jobs. It took two years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegal aliens back then, they could sure do it today.

Why can't they do this today? Hoover, Truman, & Eisenhower were men of honor, not untrustworthy politicians pandering for votes!

Improper Comparison, Palin is Like Truman

David McCullough, in his biography of Harry Truman, "Truman" says on page 217, "Harry cared little more for other [than Huey Long] celebrated 'speechifiers' in the Senate. Admittedly fearful of making a speech himself, he seemed to resent particularly those who could and who made their reputations that way. They were the 'egotistical boys' whose specialty was talk." Obama admitted that he can make a speech but that he was incapable of doing anything in the Senate. Obama worships credentials. He would never appoint a man like Truman to any post. Truman, a decent man who loved America, had an extraordinary amount of common sense. Those are two characteristics Obama lacks. It is curious that McCullough sees any comparison at all. If anyone is like Truman, it is Sarah Palin.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-01/president-barack-obamas-lessons-from-harry-truman-david-mccullough/?cid=hp:mainpromo5

What Obama Can Learn From Truman
by Joshua Robinson
Daily Beast
January 1, 2011

Harry Truman sin Harvard Degree

On the pork barrel express in DC. Everybody gets the same amount for elections, no "Info-ads" and term limits. If two TERMS IS ENOUGH FOR A PRESIDENT IT IS ENOUGH FOR CONGRESS. Career politicians only care about reelection because they can't make that much anywhere else.

Harry & Bess

Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 42 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale.."

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."

As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food.

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.

Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!

Harry Truman Great Man

THIS IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.........

Harry Truman: Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many, or more important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other 32 Presidents preceding him. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.

The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence Missouri . His wife had inherited the house from her mother and father and other than their years in the White House, they lived their entire lives there.

When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an 'allowance' and, later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year..

After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."

Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."

As president he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food..

Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale. (sic. Illinois )

Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!

Otherwise Unemployable Politicians

It is not just Presidents who have never had a real job.

[From Article]
"Wouldn't it be a fine thing to have another president whose first serious taste of failure didn't come in the Oval Office?

We don't need presidents with exclusive academic credentials. We need presidents who know what it's like to work for a living."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_our_post_modern_presidents_fail_9MKHR3ZhrLhWjxrtwsjAbL

Truman: A fighter, not an Ivy Leaguer.

Why our 'post-modern presidents' fail
New York Post
Last Updated: 4:25 AM, March 13, 2010
Posted: 12:22 AM, March 13, 2010
Ralph Peters