WHO IS THE REAL THREAT TO AMERICA?

Putin or the liberal Democrats?

Why is the liberal left so afraid of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the potentiality of closer United States and Russian communication? Without question, Russia is the second greatest power upon the face of the earth. Historically, Russian military might, prowess and national determination and fortitude defeated Napoleon and his Grand Old Guard in 1812 and Hitler’s formidable war machine beginning in 1941) Perhaps, the obsession and chatter regarding the enormity of Russian interference has more to do with American partisan politics than the genuine threat of a substantial and meaningful Russian interference.

For example, President Putin publicly expressed admiration for President Trump’s talents and disdain for Hillary Clinton. Consider the following documented quotes by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that… He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome it.”
(Seven Quotes that reveal the Mind of Vladimir Putin-Telegraph.co.uk)

“At the very least, a head of state should have a head.” (Как минимум государственный деятель должен иметь голову.) – Putin’s response to Hillary Clinton’s claim that Putin has no soul. He also recommended that international relations be built without emotion and instead on the basis of the fundamental interests of the states involved.”( Public image of Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Wikipedia, citing, высказываний Путина, ставших афоризмам footnote 83)

Hence, the bitter political rivalry between the embittered Democratic Party Clintonites and conservative support for President Trump begins. The Clintonites looking for any reason to blame her lost the presidential bid on anyone but herself clings to the Russian tampering narrative. After all, it is well-known that referring to Hillary Clinton, President Putin said,
“At the very least, a head of state should have a head” (Public image of Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Wikipedia, citing, высказываний Путина, ставших афоризмам footnote 83).

Of course, Putin’s remark was in response to Hillary Clinton’s claim Putin had no soul. Many Americans would say Hillary Clinton has no soul.  In fact, many of those American’s adverse to Clinton, also, happen to be Trump’s populist storm troopers. Hence, the likes of liberals such as the dumbfounded Pelosi, Waters, Warren, Schiff and the continuously exaggerating Schumer attempt to discredit President Trump by discrediting Russian President Putin. This is attempted by these liberal democrats to be accomplished through a war of innuendo, exaggerations, deceptions, false narratives and presumptuous but unproven implications.

Another point of fundamental disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and Russian President Vladimir Putin is the Russian President’s hard line against Islamification and Islamic jihadism and terrorism. Russian President Putin remains a tough opponent against Islamification and jihadism, Islamic terrorism. Obama, Clinton, Waters, Pelosi and other liberal Democrats accepted the Benghazi massacre and tried to turn attention away from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, Putin has a zero-tolerance policy regarding jihadism and terrorism. The Obama-Clinton worldview is diametrically opposite of conservative Putin’s worldview and philosophy. No wonder the propaganda war against Russia and specifically Putin by the Clintonites. Ponder the following quote against the return to Ottoman Islamification by Turkey. (Ataturk began the moderation and Westernization of Turkey. Erdogan wants to restore the glory of the Ottomans)

“I’m not saying it’s good or bad, but I think the current leadership of Turkey need to show the Americans and Europeans that they’re Islamizing the country but that we’re nice Islamists. To paraphrase Reagan, we’re Islamists but we’re your Islamists. “There’s a process of Islamization [going on in Turkey] that would make Ataturk turn in his grave.”
(Seven Quotes that reveal the Mind of Vladimir Putin-Telegraph.co.uk)

Hence, the Liberal Democrats are inversely opposed to Putin’s tough stance against Turkey’s restoration of Ottoman Islamification. The Ottoman Islamic empire had a client-state Caliphate in the Crimea, established after the collapse of Constantinople in 1453 and the Christian Byzantine empire. Consider the following citation:
“Khanate of Crimea, one of the successor states to the Mongol empire. Founded in 1443 and centered at Bakhchisaray, the Crimean khanate staged occasional raids on emergent Muscovy but was no longer the threat to Russian independence that its parent state, the Golden Horde, had been even after becoming a Turkish vassal in 1475.” (see britannica.com/place/khanate-of-Crimea)

The Islamic Khanate of Crimea conducted numerous raids against Christian Russia as permitted by Sharia law. These Muslim raids threatened both Christian Muscovy and Kiev. Eventually, Catherine the Great sent Russian armies against the Muslim Khanate as the following citation alludes, “The Crimean Khanate became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, but also a power claiming territory in what is today Russia’s Caspian-Volga region. Crimea was conquered by the Russian Empire in 1783.”
(see:
 A Brief History of Crimea, VOA News)

As the foregoing citations reveal, Russian President Putin’s policy towards Islamic extremism is based upon hundreds of years of historical reference and experience of the Russian people with Islamification. The defiant and undermining anti-Russian and Anti-Putin liberals have no such common historical experience or knowledge. These hypocritical liberals are devoid of Christian Russian experience with the horrors of Muslim jihadism and expansion.

This was amplified in Vladimir Putin, because, despite liberal allegation, Putin is simply not only the product of Soviet-era Russia but rather, his mother, introduced him to the older Russian Orthodox Christian culture, which predated Bolshevism. Consider the following:

“Putin’s mother was a devoted Christian believer who attended the Russian Orthodox Church, and his father was an atheist. Though his mother kept no icons at home, she attended church regularly, despite government persecution of her religion at that time. His mother secretly baptized him as a baby, and she regularly took him to services.According to Putin, his religious awakening began after a serious car crash involving his wife in 1993, and a life-threatening fire that burned down their dacha in August 1996. Shortly before an official visit to Israel, Putin’s mother gave him his baptismal cross, telling him to get it blessed. Putin states, “I did as she said and then put the cross around my neck. I have never taken it off since.” When asked in 2007 whether he believes in God, he responded, “… There are things I believe, which should not in my position, at least, be shared with the public at large for everybody’s consumption because that would look like self-advertising or a political striptease.” Putin’s rumored confessor is Russian Orthodox Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov.” (Vladimir Putin: Wikipedia)

Could it be, that the liberal American Democratic thugs are screaming loud, long and obnoxiously, in order, to orchestrate a false narrative, concerning Vladimir Putin? These two-faced, scam-infested liberal Democrats, attempt to develop a false narrative of Putin the KGB operative, during the cloak and dagger Soviet-era. A Natasha and Boris character from the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. Nice stereotypes for the 1950’s and 60’s, during the “Cold War” years, but, although entertaining, a shallow, one-dimensional Kindergartner portrayal.

This is the post-Cold War, Post Soviet-era world. It is not the 1950’s, but the 21 st Century. The Natasha and Boris stereotype should retire in the public’s minds-eye, just like the Rocky and Bullwinkle show has long since retired. One difference, the Rocky and Bullwinkle show is nice and nostalgic, the Natasha and Boris stereotypes are damaging. A notice, to liberal Democrats, should be sent forthwith, grow-up, mature from your Kindergarten portrayal of Russia and Putin and move on. This author acknowledges for those in the “dumb, dumber and even dumber” crowd, such a more sophisticated thought process may be a mental challenge and thus extremely difficult!

A side of President Putin’s personality and character that does not fit with the one-dimensional narrative the cry-baby liberal Democrats attempt to hoist as a scam on America is Vladimir Putin as thoughtful, traditional and respectful Christian. Taught by his mother at an early age. Consider the following, regarding Putin’s views and acts as a devout Christian.

“Putin regularly attends the most important services of the Russian Orthodox Church on the main Orthodox Christian holidays. He established a good relationship with Patriarchs of the Russian Church, the late Alexy II of Moscow and the current Kirill of Moscow. As President, he took an active personal part in promoting the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, signed 17 May 2007 that restored relations between the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia after the 80-year schism.”
(Vladimir Putin: Wikipedia)

The liberal American democrats, unlike conservatives, are not endorsing of Russian President Putin’s embrace of Russian Christianity because such a Christianity is not consistent with liberalism’s anti-western, anti-Christian message. Thus, Putin’s return to old Russian values offends liberal America. No doubt, America’s liberal democrats have more in common with Stalinism and Maoism than modern Russia and President Putin. Putin has been engaged in the work of a Restoration of Imperial and Christian Russia. This includes the leadership Muscovy initiated in Eastern Europe upon the decline and fall of Constantinople in 1453.
As the sun set upon the once great Byzantine power, it was Christian Muscovy (and Kiev) that stepped-up to fill the power vacuum and protect Europe from many expansionist dangers. Historically, Russia was the buffer State, which protected Christian Europe from advancing hordes, such as the Golden Horde and various Islamic incursions. Now, from a Russian perspective, what did Russia receive, in exchange, from Western Europe, for her troubles as a European border and buffer state? The answer, two unprovoked invasions, by Western European powers, Napoleon and German. In the present day, America has nasty little two-faced liberals in an feign uproar and panic regarding Muscovy influence. This feigns indignation to gain political power, which has also been a tremendous obstacle to talks regarding Russian and American cooperation in the fight against Islamic terrorism.
Terrorism relatively new to the United States and centuries old to Russia. A historical truth that these dense and apparent brain-damaged liberal Democrats are clueless.

The liberals have set up the “Russians” as a boogeyman, responsible for Democratic failure in this last presidential election, which centered in Hillary Clinton’s failed attempt to connect with the European-descendent American working class. Liberal Democrats have reached “hysteria” proportion, in regards, to Russia. This hysterical attitude has reached more feverish levels than most of the Cold War era. No doubt, the Russian boogeyman drama is a scapegoat ideal, in order, to take the American public’s attention away from Benghazi, immigration issues, Jihad terrorism, Clinton classified email leaks, Bill Clinton meeting with the U.S. Attorney, while an active investigation into his wife was being conducted and the story goes on. In the interim, opportunities to have constructive talks with the Russians are being missed. Hopefully, the appointment of independent investigator Robert Mueller will quell the liberal chicken-little cry, “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!”

Therefore, any thinking person must posit the question, is Russian President Vladimir Putin the bad character or in reality liberal American politics the substantive undermining and evil influence?

Certainly, Russian President Putin is not an American politician, but he is uniquely a Russian statesman springing from a Russian heritage, sense of Russian nationalism and an acute understanding of the pre-soviet era, Russian history. The fact that American liberals do not have any dialogue or communication with Russia is so far beyond the realm of reason, that one must conclude partisan politics are at play among liberal democrats. Unfortunately, these liberals immature and outrageous resistance to the Trump’s administration’s willingness to engage in constructive discourse with the Russians makes the world less safe and thus works against American and Russian common interests.
Thus, who is America’s real substantive enemy Putin or the liberal democrats, such as Pelosi, Waters, Warren, Schumer, and Schiff?
Who is the real threat to America?

By Jeffrey E Elliott

The post WHO IS THE REAL THREAT TO AMERICA? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Powered by WPeMatico

Leave a Reply