Club Conspiracy Forums

Club Conspiracy Forums (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/index.php)
-   North America (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Hoffman on Buchanan: How the Cryptocracy Chooses Their "Opposition" (http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1745)

Draken 10-27-2005 04:56 AM

Hoffman on Buchanan: How the Cryptocracy Chooses Their "Opposition"
 
<a href="http://www.revisionisthistory.org/buchananwatch.html">BuchananWatch
The Online Guide to the Occult Controlled Double-Mind</a>

One enormous psychological weakness gnawing at the core of people who call themselves Conservatives and Christians is that they are often double minded in themselves, and are oblivious to it in their leaders. These are "resistance leaders" which the Cryptocracy chooses to oppose it. Catholic politician and author Patrick J. Buchanan is one such Manchurian candidate. Buchanan is the chairman of the board of Right Wing Losers Inc. His schizophrenia helps to ensure the continuing power and and growth of Judaic supremacy.

The "Jewish Seat"

Buchanan in a column from October, 2005: "Now, there is nothing wrong about considering ethnicity, religion, geography or gender in a nominee. Every Democratic president since Wilson maintained a 'Jewish seat' on the Supreme Court. But Brandeis, Frankfurter and Fortas were all considered brilliant, and Clinton's choices, Ginsburg and Breyer, were never accused of lacking credentials."

I am a reasonably literate person but I can't seem to make out what it is Buchanan is saying in the preceding because I am reluctant to immediately credit my first impression -- that he's crazy. But on further examination I can come to no other conclusion. Buchanan is supposed to be a conservative opposed to affirmative action but here he is implying there is nothing wrong with reserving a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court for Judaics as long as they are "brilliant" or have "credentials." (Actually President Bill Clinton reserved two such seats). But the first question that comes to mind is, why does Buchanan want us to think that the outrageous practice of reserving a judgeship on the US Supreme Court for a Judaic is "nothing wrong"? Judaics allegedly comprise some six million Americans out of our population of 280 million. To reserve a seat for so tiny a minority is affirmative action, unless Buchanan means to imply very subtly that Judaics, with their familiarity with the Talmud, are such clever lawyers that they stand head and shoulders above other Americans and on that basis, deserve special treatment. Either way it is a form of preferential hiring.

Is there a Presbyterian seat on the Supreme Court? A Catholic seat? Greek Orthodox? Pentecostal? Why should there be any "seat" reserved for members of ethnicities or sects? Shouldn't the best man or woman get the job? Hasn't Buchanan made the latter standard his own in countless columns and speeches? But now he is directly contradicting himself. His is the --wink,wink-- "clever strategy" of supposedly defeating Judaism by conceding some of its myths in order to sneak through some truths inconvenient to it, while maintaining one's financial and social standing in a Judaic-dominated world. Was this Christ's way?

The rabbis love it because they've got their supposed greatest critic--Pat Buchanan-- imparting to his followers Judaic myths. What could be better?

Who puts up with this nonsense? Certainly not Christians, though the majority of Buchanan's audience consider themselves up-on-their-hind legs militant Christians, who must, from time to time, compromise and perhaps even tell a few lies like lawyers do, especially those who want to gain a "seat" somewhere. This they consider real politik, for winners. Anything else (like taking Jesus at his word) is for losers. I don't know if they've checked their scorecards lately or not, but Judaism is supreme in the United States due to "clever tactics" like theirs.

Tyrannical Federal Judge Could Help Bush Lead the Coalition and Rally the Base

Oct. 26, 2005. Buchanan on Supreme Court candidates: "...if or when the Miers nomination dies, and Bush sends up a Michael Luttig or Edith Jones, his base would rally and he could lead his coalition in a decisive battle over whose judicial philosophy should guide the Supreme Court."

Fourth Circuit Court Justice J. Michael Luttig is the federal tyrant who ruled in September, 2005 that President Bush has the right to arrest any American citizen and imprison them indefinitely, thus suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, de facto. In his ruling, Luttig declared accused terrorist Jose Padilla guilty as charged without any trial having been conducted or evidence presented. Luttig is the wicked servant of King George who Buchanan says will--if nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush-- "rally his base," and lead the coalition in a "decisive battle" over judicial philosophy. Notice Buchanan's red meat phrase "decisive battle." As if a struggle to help get a police state enacted by naming Luttig to the Supreme Court is anything other than a wimp-like surrender to the forces of absolute despotism.

末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末末

Watch for his trance cue words:

<a href="http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire2.html">"The Black Sheep wants to come home"
Buchanan in 2004: Vote for Bush for President</a>

Bouncer 10-27-2005 11:15 AM

Re: Hoffman on Buchanan: How the Cryptocracy Chooses Their "Opposition"
 
Quote:

Draken wrote:

Buchanan is supposed to be a conservative opposed to affirmative action but here he is implying there is nothing wrong with reserving a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court for Judaics as long as they are "brilliant" or have "credentials." (Actually President Bill Clinton reserved two such seats). But the first question that comes to mind is, why does Buchanan want us to think that the outrageous practice of reserving a judgeship on the US Supreme Court for a Judaic is "nothing wrong"?
I would guess that it is a preemptive strike against any objections, but he did not frame it properly so it becomes a negative affirmation, meaning he introduced the idea that something should be wrong, but he doesn't think so. Doublespeak 101.

It is obviously preferential treatment, but we are supposed to wink at it; I think this is what he means. It is more likely political that an endorsement of the superiority of Judaic justices.

George_Bush 10-27-2005 08:20 PM

Re: Hoffman on Buchanan: How the Cryptocracy Chooses Their "Opposition"
 
Well, you see what we done is way back when we introduced this false doctrine called Dispensational Premillenialism. Heck, that thing's spread all over Christendom by now.

We don't have to worry about the 'Christians' being for Zionism. They are already convinced that Jesus is a Zionist and that's a gonna sit on Solomon's rebuilt temple!

Heh-heh! We got them Christians in our back pockets.

--W

Bouncer 10-28-2005 10:46 AM

Re: Hoffman on Buchanan: How the Cryptocracy Chooses Their "Opposition"
 
Oh, is THAT what that smell is?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.