Connect with us

Deplorables

‘We Are Americans’: Watch John F. Kennedy In This Time of Crisis

Published

on

President John F. Kennedy (1961-63) tried to set a new path for American foreign policy, navigating the treacherous waters of world diplomacy in the middle zone between appeasement and constant war. For his good practical judgment, the Deep State considered him a radical.

On this anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination — November 22 — we pause to pay respect to the man who gave Americans a renewed sense of optimism and purpose. In his absence, the country fell into a chaotic darkness. But the American Republic sustains.

President Kennedy gave this speech at the University of Washington on November 16, 1961. Here is a video clip, followed by the audio of the entire speech below:

Trending: Feckless Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler Admits ANTIFA Rioters Aren’t “Peaceful Protestors” As Mayhem Continues

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Here is the text of the full speech (excerpted below):

There are two groups of these frustrated citizens, far apart in their views yet very much alike in their approach. On the one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of surrender–appeasing our enemies, compromising our commitments, purchasing peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had prevailed, the world of free choice would be smaller today.

On the other hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of war: equating negotiations with appeasement and substituting rigidity for firmness. If their view had prevailed, we would be at war today, and in more than one place.

It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead. Each side sees only “hard” and “soft” nations, hard and soft policies hard and soft men. Each believes that any departure from its own course inevitably leads to the other: one group believes that any peaceful solution means appeasement; the other believes that any arms buildup means war. One group regards everyone else as warmongers, the other regards everyone else as appeasers. Neither side admits that its path will lead to disaster–but neither can tell us how or where to draw the line once we descend the slippery slopes of appeasement or constant intervention.

In short, while both extremes profess to be the true realists of our time, neither could be more unrealistic. While both aim to be doing the nation a service, they could do it no greater disservice. This kind of talk of easy solutions to difficult problems, if believed, could inspire a lack of confidence among our people when they must all–above all else–be united in recognizing the long and difficult days that lie ahead. It could inspire uncertainty among our allies when above all else they must be confident in us. And even more dangerously it could, if believed, inspire doubt among our adversaries when they must above all else be convinced that we will defend our vital interests.

The essential fact that both of these groups fail to grasp is that diplomacy and defense are not substitutes for one another. Either alone would fail. A willingness to resist force, unaccompanied by a willingness to talk, could provoke belligerence–while a willingness to talk, unaccompanied by a willingness to resist force, could invite disaster…

In short, we are neither “warmongers” nor “appeasers,” neither “hard” nor “soft.” We are Americans, determined to defend the frontiers of freedom, by an honorable peace if peace is possible, but by arms if arms are used against us. . . .

Deplorables

BIG: Saint Louis Police Detective REFUSED TO SIGN Soros Funded Prosecutor’s Probable Cause Document Against McCloskeys

This could doom the bunk charges.

Published

on

New developments in the criminal case against Mark and Patricia McCloskey by Soros-funded Saint Louis Prosecutor Kim Gardner reveals that a lead police detective refused to sign a probable cause statement drafted by Gardner’s office. The probable cause statement appears filled with falsehoods and lies, and claims that the trespassing rioters that broke into the private community of the McCloskeys were “peaceful.”

The ‘signature’ element of the probable cause statements against both McCloskeys has been conspicuously left blank, with Curtis Burgdorf leaving off his signature.

KDSK St. Louis reported Tuesday that Gardner’s Assistant Circuit Attorney Chris Hinckley emailed these documents to Sergeant Curtis Burgdorf the day before a gun confiscation search warrant was served on the McCloskeys, telling the cop that he needed to sign them “now.” Gardner’s office merely went ahead with the gun confiscation, later criminally charging the couple, after falsely trying to put words in the mouth of the St. Louis Police Department.

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

KDSK is also reporting that Burgdorf had documented numerous threats directed towards the McCloskeys by the Black Lives Matter trespassing rioters, including waving loaded pistol magazines at the couple and warning that they would be “coming back” to the residence.

Gardner’s subordinate Hinckley would go on to leave Sergeant Burgdorf an angry voicemail for refusing to sign off on fraudulent documents alleging crimes against the McCloskeys.

Curtis, you need to call me back. I wrote a long email to you trying to ask a bunch of questions about whatever it is you said some was (expletive). Now we need to straighten this out because I’m about done with this crap. Call me back.”

Merely weeks after charges were filed, the case against the McCloskeys is already filled with massive improprieties and downright corruption, including a revelation that a prosecutor with Gardner’s office had ordered forensics experts to reassemble Patricia McCloskey’s pistol from its original state as a non-functional courtroom prop to a functional firearm.

CORRUPT: Saint Louis Prosecutors Ordered Police to Alter McCloskey’s Inoperable Pistol for Criminal Charges

It’s well past time for these bunk charges to be summarily dismissed as political prosecution, and for Gardner to be investigated for her resolute willingness to prosecute her political enemies and go easy on left-wing criminals.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending