America First?

[AACJ]

It has a dark history. Hitler in the 1930s,supported the original "America First" movement.

Charles Lindberg was recruited as a "useful fool", and at "America First" rallies, gave speeches denouncing American support for Great Britain against Germans, blaming German Jews for the controversy.

In December 1941, Ingalls was charged by a grand jury with failing to register with the government as a paid Nazi agent, in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. She had been receiving approximately $300 a month from Baron Ulrich von Gienanth (Ulrich Freiherr von Gienanth), the head of the Gestapo in the US, and, officially, second secretary of the German Embassy in Washington. During the trial it came out that von Gienanth had encouraged Ingalls's participation in the non-interventionist America First Committee, a significant embarrassment for that organization.
Laura Ingalls (aviator) - Wikipedia

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Historical peoples and/or groups have no monopoly on the phrase, America First. The meaning of Trump's use of the slogan is and should be derived from the context of the totality of his speeches and actions, not within the context of how people in bygone years used it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Historical peoples and/or groups have no monopoly on the phrase, America First.

The organization was a Nazi-supported American nationalist isolationist group in the 1930s. That's where the phrase got started.

The meaning of Trump's use of the slogan is and should be derived from the context of the totality of his speeches and actions

Obviously, it's not the Germans who are supporting Trump this time. It's the Russian authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin.

There are other differences, too. It's not primarily about the Jews this time. The target groups are Hispanics and Muslims.

Yes, there have been some anti-Semitic episodes by Trump supporters, but that seems to be a throwback to an earlier time, and does not directly reflect on Trump himself.

 

[AACJ]

The organization was a Nazi-supported American nationalist isolationist group in the 1930s. That's where the phrase got started.



Obviously, it's not the Germans who are supporting Trump this time. It's the Russian authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin.

There are other differences, too. It's not primarily about the Jews this time. The target groups are Hispanics and Muslims.

Yes, there have been some anti-Semitic episodes by Trump supporters, but that seems to be a throwback to an earlier time, and does not directly reflect on Trump himself.

Doesn't negate that his use of the slogan is not derived form historical figures. The slogan is not a call to isolationism nor religious discrimination. Its discrimination against a nation-destroying belief systems that Trump is defining as "radical Islamic terrorism." What, should the communists have been allowed into the country unchecked during the cold war? Just because the term "religion" is slapped onto a belief system does not mean it should be protected and allowed to proliferate through immigration.

It continually astounds me that people actually believe the American founders had in mind the establishment of a government and society that would allow for the proliferation of nation-destroying belief systems.

So what, if we were to label communism a religion, would it then be suddenly protected with the requirement that communists be allowed into the country en-masse?

Even Secular Humanism has been recognized by the feds as a religion.

Hispanics are not being targeted, illegals are.

Of course the Russians want Trump in office--as opposed to Hillary Clinton. Have you forgotten? Clinton publicly accused Putin of having no soul! Do you think he has forgotten that? Can you think of a worse public slander that could be leveled against the Russian leader?

 

[The Barbarian]

Doesn't negate that his use of the slogan is not derived form historical figures.

As you learned it was the slogan of an isolationist group infiltrated by the Germans in the 1930s, and used by historical figure Charles Lindberg in his speeches against the Jews.

The slogan is not a call to isolationism nor religious discrimination.

It is both, and has been used by America's enemies before, for the same purpose. History repeats itself.

Its discrimination against a nation-destroying belief systems that Trump is defining as "radical Islamic terrorism."

He has confused the Bill of Rights with "radical Islamic terrorism." Obama has been decimating radical Islamic terrorism through military and economic action. Our Muslim allies have been doing most of the work on the ground against Islamic terrorists, while we have contributed air power to crush radical Islamic forces and special forces operations to take out their leaders.

What, should the communists have been allowed into the country unchecked during the cold war?

We welcomed thousands of Hungarian refugees after the failed Hungarian revolution. While there were indeed a few Russian agents among them, we rightly gave them refuge. For all our faults then, we were not cowards.

Just because the term "religion" is slapped onto a belief system does not mean it should be protected and allowed to proliferate through immigration.

Government has no place "allowing" or "suppressing" religion through immigration or other means.

It continually astounds me that people actually believe the American founders had in mind the establishment of a government and society that would allow for the proliferation of nation-destroying belief systems.

And yet you're endorsing one of them. Freedom of religion, as Jefferson pointed out, included Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Vedic religions. You're an American; try to act like one.

So what, if we were to label communism a religion, would it then be suddenly protected with the requirement that communists be allowed into the country en-masse?

The early Christians were communists. And many of them continued that for a long time. In Iowa, the Amana colonies were Christians so communistic that their homes had no kitchens; they ate in communal dining halls. You're thinking of Marxism.

Even Secular Humanism has been recognized by the feds as a religion.

You're thinking of Humanism, which is a Christian movement. Secular humanism is not considered to be a religion.

Hispanics are not being targeted, illegals are.

Trump announced that people of Mexican descent could not be impartial judges, even targeting a native born American of Mexican descent. So your denial isn't very believable.

Of course the Russians want Trump in office--as opposed to Hillary Clinton.

Of course they do. He owes them a lot of money, according to Trump's son. Trump removed a strong stand against Russian aggression in the republican party platform, and said that he might not defend NATO members against Russian aggression. Putin wants a weak American president, and he got one.

Have you forgotten? Clinton publicly accused Putin of having no soul! Do you think he has forgotten that?

Of course he hasn't. The last thing Putin wants is a strong American president, who will confront Russian aggression. He wants a weak, pliable president like Trump.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Who first, if not America?

 

[AACJ]

As you learned it was the slogan of an isolationist group infiltrated by the Germans in the 1930s, and used by historical figure Charles Lindberg in his speeches against the Jews.



It is both, and has been used by America's enemies before, for the same purpose. History repeats itself.



He has confused the Bill of Rights with "radical Islamic terrorism." Obama has been decimating radical Islamic terrorism through military and economic action. Our Muslim allies have been doing most of the work on the ground against Islamic terrorists, while we have contributed air power to crush radical Islamic forces and special forces operations to take out their leaders.



We welcomed thousands of Hungarian refugees after the failed Hungarian revolution. While there were indeed a few Russian agents among them, we rightly gave them refuge. For all our faults then, we were not cowards.



Government has no place "allowing" or "suppressing" religion through immigration or other means.



And yet you're endorsing one of them. Freedom of religion, as Jefferson pointed out, included Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Vedic religions. You're an American; try to act like one.



The early Christians were communists. And many of them continued that for a long time. In Iowa, the Amana colonies were Christians so communistic that their homes had no kitchens; they ate in communal dining halls. You're thinking of Marxism.



You're thinking of Humanism, which is a Christian movement. Secular humanism is not considered to be a religion.



Trump announced that people of Mexican descent could not be impartial judges, even targeting a native born American of Mexican descent. So your denial isn't very believable.



Of course they do. He owes them a lot of money, according to Trump's son. Trump removed a strong stand against Russian aggression in the republican party platform, and said that he might not defend NATO members against Russian aggression. Putin wants a weak American president, and he got one.



Of course he hasn't. The last thing Putin wants is a strong American president, who will confront Russian aggression. He wants a weak, pliable president like Trump.

The Regressives have lost in the US!

Their world view is on the fast track to dereliction in our America the Beautiful, the Land God has gave to His people, the center of His Church!

The Right should stop calling them "Progressives." They are Regressives; They are the Regressive Left. We should make reference to Leftist Regressivism.

All you praying Christians out there had better be seriously praying that God Almighty will root out the regressive teachers, professors and administrators in our schools, colleges and universities. They are churning out young atheists and Marxist/Communist clones in a flood whos worldview/agenda must be opposed at every turn.

These young people are being polluted and diluted in our educational system. They are as susceptible as they have always been; they are a potential time bomb that must be diffused.

So many of them refuse to learn from history's demonstration of what builds and maintains a great country, its call to holiness and Bible-based knowledge and wisdom.

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
Abraham Lincoln

I pray and hope the Lord will increase student campus evangelism. This is a great need.

 

[Armoured]

So many of them refuse to learn from history's demonstration of what builds and maintains a great country, its call to holiness and Bible-based knowledge and wisdom.

...I have no words...

 

[The Barbarian]

The Regressive Left has lost in the US!

Sorry, no bunny trails for you today.

We're talking about the origins of the "America First" movement. It was an isolationist, anti-Jewish movement, which had been infiltrated by the German government in the 1930s.

History repeats itself. Jews aren't the primary target now, and the government infiltrating the movement is Russia, not Germany.

But otherwise the same.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Sorry, no bunny trails for you today.

We're talking about the origins of the "America First" movement. It was an isolationist, anti-Jewish movement, which had been infiltrated by the German government in the 1930s.

It wasn't anti-Jewish in the slightest, and the British and Soviet infiltration of the interventionist movement, and even the Roosevelt administration, was even more extensive.

 

[The Barbarian]

It wasn't anti-Jewish in the slightest

Well, let's take a look...

"The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. "
Charles Lindberg, of the America First Movement, regarding the supposed influence of Jews opposed to the best interests of America

and the British and Soviet infiltration of the interventionist movement, and even the Roosevelt administration, was even more extensive.

So the Nazis and their collaborators said. But in fact, we have actual evidence for infiltration of the America First movement by the Nazis.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Well, let's take a look...

"The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. "
Charles Lindberg, of the America First Movement, regarding the supposed influence of Jews opposed to the best interests of America

As I said, not anti-Jewish in the slightest...

So the Nazis and their collaborators said.

So HUAC investigations revealed....

 

[AACJ]

Trump announced that people of Mexican descent could not be impartial judges, even targeting a native born American of Mexican descent. So your denial isn't very believable.

Ok, The Barbarian (eyes rolling), I will attempt to address your other errors and false equivalencies later--as I have time. But for now I would sincerely like to thank you for helping to demonstrate the nature of Leftist Regressivism.

So let us now consider the worn out and debunked accusation that Trump's comment's concerning the litigation presided over by Judge Curiel was somehow indicative of racism on Trump's part.

I will re-post something here that was found elsewhere:

"Liberals and some conservatives have accused Donald Trump of being a racist for doubting the ability of Judge Gonzalo Curiel to preside unbiasedly in the Trump litigation due to Curiel’s Mexican/Latino heritage.

Such an accusation is a perfect example of the liberal media lying through omission. They want to make Trump’s complaint concerning this judge solely about the judge’s Latino/Mexican background. Indeed, if Trump’s problem with Curiel’s position in his litigation was only about Curiel’s Latino/Mexican heritage, then of course that would be a serious problem. However, Donald Trump’s complaint actually concerns Curiel’s Mexican heritage AND the following:

1) There are no such things as Judges who are entirely free of bias; therefore, a certain amount of prejudice remains. If anyone actually believes that judges are completely free of negative bias, then you probably have not engaged all of your facility for critical thinking.

2) Because all judges maintain a certain amount of bias, it is completely reasonable to assume that such bias will ultimately influence their legal decisions, at least to some degree. This is not only logical, but can be historically verified.

3) Gonzalo Curiel is a Judge--obviously.

4) Gonzalo Curiel is associated with certain organizations identifying with countries and cultures south of America’s border, such as Mexico. This presents undeniable proof that Gonzalo Curiel still identifies to some degree with said countries, such as Mexico.

5) Gonzalo Curiel’s parents were Mexican immigrants (I also assume that he still has some kind of family still residing in Mexico).

6) Donald Trump is not just any man in Gonzalo Curiel’s court. He is a man that, as the republican nominee, not only has the potential to further legislation and policy that will effect Mexico, but has also specifically promised to do so (Gonzalo Curiel is very much aware of this).

7) Gonzalo Curiel was appointed by Barack Obama to the United States District Court.

8) Donald Trump is openly opposed to Abama’s policies. Gonzalo Curiel is very much aware of this.

9) Gonzalo Curiel belongs to the The Hispanic National Bar Association, which has publicly sworn to oppose Donald Trump’s business interests.

10) Gonzalo Curiel is presiding over two lawsuits against Trump University, and his actions thus far in these court proceedings have not been favorable to Trump.

11) In responding to Trump’s accusation calling into question Curiel’s ability to preside over the proceedings without bias against Trump, Curiel stated: “[Trump] placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue.” Curiel probably sees Trump’s allegation as a personal attack.

In consideration of the above listed points (and others not mentioned), Donald Trump is completely justified in being concerned about the strong possibility of Curiel being biased against him in the Trump University proceedings. Trump has had the courage to speak what most of us--if we should be honest--would, at least, THINK. So anyone who might be having difficulty seeing past the blindfold of political correctness should think twice before slinging stones at Trump. They should carefully consider what they would do and say if they were in his same exact same situation."

Now, do you understand the difference between negative bias associated entirely with race and bias associated with the combination of race and the above described 11 points of argument?

When I say "bias," I reference an older definition of the term:

2. A leaning of the mind; inclination; prepossession; propensity towards an object, not leaving the mind indifferent; as, education gives a bias to the mind.
3. That which causes the mind to lean or incline from a state of indifference, to a particular object or course. (Webster DIctionary 1828)

Of course there is nothing wrong with suggesting that someone's race could create a negative bias in that person's judgment. Trump indicated such, within the context of the the 11 points stated in the argument. Do you believe that Judges' judgments are not subject to negative bias arising from their skin color and/or cultural roots/conditioning or political preferences? Negative bias exists within all people's. The only way it can be mitigated or subdued is by devine intervention. Now, did Curiel experience such devine intervention? If not, then the 11 point argument certainly demonstrates Curiel was, at one time, most likely negatively biased against Trump.

You regressives are so ardent in preaching your negative inclusivism, that you are way to quick to point the finger at someone and cry "bigotry" and "racist." Your race-bating is getting old quick.

 

[brinny]

Praying.

 

[AACJ]

Praying.

Me Too!

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok, The Barbarian (eyes rolling), I will attempt to address your other errors and false equivalencies later--as I have time. But for now I would sincerely like to thank you for helping to demonstrate the nature of Leftist Regressivism.

Sounds like someone's a bit short of evidence.

So let us now consider the worn out and debunked accusation that Trump's comment's concerning the litigation presided over by Judge Curiel was somehow indicative of racism on Trump's part.

Well, let's ask one of his supporters:

WASHINGTON — Speaker Paul D. Ryan, the nation’s highest-ranking Republican, on Tuesday called Donald J. Trump’s remarks about a Latino judge “racist,” an extraordinary indictment that generated a fresh wave of criticism and panic from other Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel.html?_r=0

I will re-post something here that was found elsewhere:

(excuses deleted)

Now, do you understand the difference between negative bias associated entirely with race

Such as Trump's claim that a judge of Mexican descent can't be impartial?

and bias associated with the combination of race and the above described 11 points of argument?

Racism and excuses are different from just racism? How so?

 

[AACJ]

Sounds like someone's a bit short of evidence.



Well, let's ask one of his supporters:

WASHINGTON — Speaker Paul D. Ryan, the nation’s highest-ranking Republican, on Tuesday called Donald J. Trump’s remarks about a Latino judge “racist,” an extraordinary indictment that generated a fresh wave of criticism and panic from other Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel.html?_r=0



(excuses deleted)



Such as Trump's claim that a judge of Mexican descent can't be impartial?



Racism and excuses are different from just racism? How so?

Poor argumentation; poor reply.

You regressives are so ardent in preaching your negative inclusivism, that you are way to quick to point the finger at someone and cry "bigotry" and "racist." Your race-bating is getting old quick.

 

[AACJ]

Racism and excuses are different from just racism? How so?

When I say "bias," I referenced an older definition of the term:

2. A leaning of the mind; inclination; prepossession; propensity towards an object, not leaving the mind indifferent; as, education gives a bias to the mind.
3. That which causes the mind to lean or incline from a state of indifference, to a particular object or course. (Webster DIctionary 1828)

Sorry about that. I understand that the word has now taken an almost entirely negative connotation. Should have used a different word.

Of course there is nothing wrong with suggesting that someone's race could create a negative bias in that person's judgment. Trump indicated such, within the context of the the 11 points stated in the argument. Do you believe that Judges' judgments are not subject to negative bias arising from their skin color and/or cultural roots/conditioning or political preferences? Negative bias exists within all people's. The only way it can be mitigated or subdued is by devine intervention. Now, did Curiel experience such devine intervention? If not, then the 11 point argument certainly demonstrates Curiel was, at one time, most likely negatively biased against Trump.