JFK 1961 Speech

Normally I would not post an analysis developed by Limbaugh on this site, simply because of how long winded Limbaugh tends to be. However, this analysis is of a JFK speech from 1961 and how Limbaugh believes that it applies to modern day democrats. I'm just curious to hear a Democrat's take on JFK's speech and on Limbaugh's analysis.
Sorry it's so LOOOooooooooong
_____________________________
Now, to this JFK speech. Again, this is November 18th of 1961. It's called the Conspiracy Theory speech. And I just want to read what he said to you, what he said in this speech, I want to read it to you. And remember that JFK was a Democrat in 1961, but I want you, as you hear this: who is he, if he were giving this speech today, if this speech were words written today and delivered today, about whom would these words refer, or to whom would they refer?

Joined in progress, the speech says, "Now we are face-to-face once again with a period of heightened peril. The risks are great, the burdens heavy, the problems incapable of swift or lasting solution. And under the strains and frustrations imposed by constant tension and harassment, the discordant voices of extremism are heard once again in the land. Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without are convinced that the real danger comes from within."

Do I need to translate this as I go, or is this all right? If this speech were given today -- President Kennedy here is talking about today's Democrats when he says "men who are unwilling to face up to the danger from without…" -- i.e., the terrorists, and the threat from this worldwide network, which includes Iraq -- "…are convinced the real danger comes from within." George W. Bush. "They look suspiciously at their neighbors and their leaders. They call for a man on horseback because they do not trust the people."

Where is somebody to get rid of Bush? We need Kerry. We need somebody, because we can't trust the people to do the right thing in this country. "They find treason in our finest churches." Treason in our finest churches? Well, I can translate this by saying, can you name one Christian organization the left in this country respects and loves and does not fear and has not tried to malign from the Boy Scouts to the Catholic Church, to any other denomination? Everything traditional in this country is under assault by the left. Anything that has anything to do with God is not to be trusted, and is to be winnowed and separated out from the mainstream of American political culture. They find treason in our finest churches; they find treason in our highest court. Florida 2000, Scalia, he gave this election to Bush.

"And even in the treatment of our water." Now, this is probably the arsenic. Yep, yep, this is arsenic. This is arsenic when Bush took over. They said Bush didn't do anything to enforce Clinton's new arsenic rules. "They object, quite rightly, to politics intruding on the military, but they are anxious for the military to engage in politics. But you and I and most Americans take a different view of our peril. We know that it comes from without, not from within. It must be met by quiet preparedness, not provocative speeches. And the steps taken this year to bolster our defenses, to increase our missile forces, to put more planes on alert, to provide more airlift and sea lift and ready divisions, to make more certain than ever before that this nation has the power, all the power it'll need to deter any attack of any kind, those steps constitute the most effective answer that can be made to those who would sow the seeds of doubt and hate."

Here is John Kennedy speaking for the need for a powerful military to deal with the forces outside the country that threaten us; and warning about the people in this country who see no threat from outside, only from within, and do not want to build up a military at all to deal with it. Who's he talking about? Once again, just as he was talking about liberal Democrats and opposing tax cuts when he made that speech in 1962, so again in 1961, in a speech on conspiracy theories, he more identifies with today's left and Democrats than with anyone else.

He continues, "So let us not heed these counsels of fear and suspicion. Let us concentrate more on keeping enemy bombers and missiles away from our shores." Can I translate this for you? We don't need to sit here and start increasing port security. Oh, we can do that, but that's not going to stop this. We've got to go where these people are and stop them. We need to keep enemy bombers and missiles away from our shores, we need to go wherever we need to go to make sure these terrorists do not infiltrate this country and destroy us from within.

"Let us devote more energy to organize the free and friendly nations of the world with common trade and strategic goals." Senator Kennedy - Senator Kerry, rather, is out there saying this NAFTA is a bad idea. He's siding with the unions - we can't have free trade. He wants to side with the nations who are not our friends. He wants to side with the nations who indeed opposed us in the nation's defense. The exact things that President Kennedy warned against in 1961, today's Democrats are in favor of.

"Let us devote less energy to organizing armed bands of civilian guerillas that are most likely to supply local vigilantes than national vigilance, and let our patriotism be reflected in the creation of confidence rather than crusades of suspicion. Let us prove that we think our country great by striving to make it greater, and, above all, let us remember that however serious the outlook, the one great irreversible trend in world history is on the side of liberty. And so for all time to come are we."

Hello, Iraq. Hello, Afghanistan. Hello, George Bush's foreign policy, endorsed here by President Kennedy forty-three years ago, as he in that speech warns us against the very ideas and personages that exist today on the American Democrat left.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Where was that woman from, that woman was from Sacramento, wasn't she? Yeah, Karen from Sacramento, she told me I was not -- it was a caller not long ago -- who told me I was not entitled to quote JFK because he was a Democrat and I'm a Republican, and I can't quote what he said.

This speech, by the way, I think was aimed at the John Birch Society. It's interesting how the country's done a total 180 since Kennedy gave this speech, because, I'm telling you, folks. You read this. We're going to post this on the website so you can see it. JFK in '61 is talking dead on about today's liberal Democrats. It's uncanny.

I think most of us, who can look rationaly at the situation will point out that we are ignoreing the true threats (Al-Quida, the ever present N. Korea) in favor of fallowing bushes pet war in iraq, and that our iraq policies has made the US less secure then it was before we invaded iraq...so yes the threat comes from within, we needa leader who can close the rift between the US and the world bush has shown that all he can do is devied.

Lets also ignore the act that bush is agenst free trade (see food and steal tarrifs.), He has weakend our military (lowered the pay to the point that our best troops are fleaing to privet armys).



One final question...has any one cheked to see if the drug addict is just makeing this speach up?

Bballad some points....

Bush can't lower military pay that is ridiculous. The deepest cut in resources it has ever seen was by Clinton. That could be a major factor in his success at balancing the budget but the fact is he critically cut military man power.

Bush is against free trade? One could argue that point I guess since the republican stance has been to limit trade historically. That agrument being a decline of border controls has lead to the vast outpouring of outsoursed jobs overseas. Here are some facts that are most likely convoluted: Bush ran on a "free" trade platform. He want's to make permenent trade agreements with China of which Gore and Clinton started PNTR. His desire is to make it stick. He want's to expand NAFTA and add several additional countries to the group. And there are others. What he does want to restrict is exporting military technology. Something the left often screams about. What trade issues are you refering too? He also support admitting additional countries into the WTO. If anything he is a liberal president on many issues.

Drug addict? lol, if he were a movie star or a politician he would be applauded for his success at treatment and courage by the very same people who call him an addict.

I was going to go into Al Q and Korea but time flies and it's beerthirty. Peace.

I am jsut holding rush to the same standered he holds every one else to...hes an addict.


as for free trade i am refering to subsdiseing steel and farming for political gains.

internal trade? I am not sure what you are talking about that is new, but I can definitely say the farming industry has been subsidized for decades and more like scores of years. The polical heat was raised a bit when I was a child in the 70s because subsidizing prevented enormous surplus but was often viewed as detrimental to farm income. Lesser of two evils. The steel industry like many are victims of exteme environmentalism. It's a nasty business with price caps placed on it in the 60s, price controls in the 70s and absolute quota control in the 80s and 90s. I know of several complaints against the US through the WTO that us companies are abusing international trade laws and perhaps the government hasn't done the best job at regulating the industry. They require money to effectively trade with countries offering the same product at massively discounted prices. How Bush is at the center of these issues is news to me. Subsidiaries have been here decades and trade restrictions of commodities are designed to prevent predatory behavior.

//Edit These guys are obviously biased against subsidiary, since they are a US trade organization, but it gives a side that you seemed inclined to take. http://www.aiis.org/steelpolicy.html I am open to the issue and this article post is my own interpretation, but it's not anywhere near a major political issue for me. Bush could lean on either side and I wouldn't mind. You do realize a change in policy would be to give US dominance over world markets?

great, but that realy dosn't amount to free trade dose it....it seems that bush is for free trade only when it can enrich him or his friends......also look at state rights and you will see a very cloudy picture.

did you read my post? What would you have a president do in the situation of subsidiaries? Go balls to the wall, lift them and flood the world market with American Steel? That would be a very far right republican thing to do, corner a world market and exploit it.

what the hell are you talking about, we subsidies US steal and put tarrifs on forign steal so the US companies lower there prices...we are not competative in steal we could never flood the market.

bballad, what do you think a subsidiary does? Lower prices? A subsidiary pays a company to keep PRODUCTION down and in some cases offer goods below production cost. The government pays a company not to produce. For instance say you need to produce 100 tons of steel and the market demand is less, so you produce those 100 tons and the surplus forces prices down and shuts all non-competitive steel companies down. That is a real world scenario with world economics behind it. So the government sets a restriction of 10 tons on your steel company and pays the difference or a fair value of what 100 tons would have brought. This is very simplified but is at the guts of subsidiaries. Of course companies don't like it! They want to flood markets and rule the business landscape and annihilate all competition. Some companies have been approaching the government to ease off on the leash and only punish those who then commence in predatory actions with the market.

Subsidiaries by theory keep competition and fair pricing into the international landscape and ensure demand stays alive. If demand is not managed a market crash could occur.

For or against one, or even if you don't buy into my definition, this is a 40 year legacy not something that Bush has control over. Even if he did I wouldn't make much of a stink about it in the political arena. What do you think the result of pulling out subsidizing industry will be? What would the benefit be if one company decided to undercut the entire world trade market? Why is this a Bush issue all of a sudden, they have been in place since the 60s and what would you have him do, or any future president?
What should Clinton have done? Why the issue is what I am saying, other than fuel for political sway.

Also, for your knowledge some industries even get FOREGIN subsidiaries. Now that's interesting!

That's what the HELL I am talking about. ;)

I would sugest you look into our steal market...there is a reason the world trad organization is looking at penilizing it....... some times you can be a littel t oidealic, the neo-cons support the free market no more then the liberals.

Long but I hope it explains something. call me a neo con if you like. I looked right at our steel industry. From both a government and business prospective. I am not being idealistic am I? I am representing the intention of subsidizing and stating historically what has transpired. Granted I am guilty of only analyzing steel companies within the US and not taking a broader approach.

I think you are confused, or perhaps I am. The WTO is penalizing the US for many reasons including and not limited to Steel. But the Steel issue borders around section 201 . I am beginning to wonder if that is what you are referring too. Assuming we are on the same page this is 2 or 3 years old? Election issue, could be for some in the Steel biz who lost jobs during the decline. Several senators of Steel states called for the president to do something and initiate section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974. Some history:

In 1998 we all remember the Asian financial crisis, this flooded the American market with some really cheap steel and imports during 2001 were skyrocketing driving the price of American Steel down. See this is why we internally subsidize industry sometimes.

So Bush launches his investigation into section 201 and answers the call by many to look into exports. "As part of our free trade agenda, we are committed to ensuring that American industry and American workers can compete on a level playing field," President Bush said . "This initiative is designed to restore market forces to world steel markets and eliminate the practices that harm our steel industry and its workers." The request was to place quotas and tariffs on imports. Something you mentions bballad but I assumed you were in support of steel companies not against them. It was they , who called for the initiation through their Washington lobbies and steel state representatives and various outlets. I have seen dozens of letters to the white house on the net.

So you are against him reacting to the needs of the industry and initiating section 201 ? In this case the subsidizing you refer to was not to force steel makers to cut output, it was to keep them from closing. So he pressed forward with great resistance from Japanese and foreign Steel companies WITH US holdings. I am not sure how that is a violations of free trade since the companies were going bankrupt left and right. Here is a note from Rockefeller a democratic representative.

Next

The next few years saw political turmoil as nation after nation filed suite against the 201 action. In 2003 the WTO found the US to be in violation of fair trade rules almost 2 years after Bush enacted 201 based on the needs expressed by the industry. Is that what you are referring to in stating the WTO is pissed at us? Why did the WTO see the action as illegal? The action had a time limit and bush cut it off 16 months early stating that it served it's purpose. Perhaps the billions of dollars in "retaliation" also caused some sway? Fix one problem, cause another? Out of the frying pan into the fire?

Right now the steel industry is mixed on the issue, some say the tariffs cause more damage, but it was the people who wanted it. So I ask again, where do you stand and what is your concern? It seemed to have done it's job, are you for the 201 measure and if so Bush did it, the WTO said it was illegal after a set period and he recalled it. The industry has also been somewhat divided on the issue over the years. I see many references to Steel consumer companies asking for the repeal of 201 as opposed to steel producing. So there ya have it. Perhaps you are angry that he recalled it early? Angry that consumers were not entirely happy. Should we go to war with the EU and Japan because were forcing a retaliation approach financially? should we have let the US Stell industry die? I can’t tell what you are referring too or upset about.

In an idealistic world, subsidizing a world wide market would prevent overproduction from killing smaller companies, so in that respect I am idealistic but I understand idealism from reality.

Now woudn't a free trade stance be to let an industry that can't compeat in the market die?

Letting us steel industry die? Surely the end of logic here. Steel is one of the most important industries to a country. If there must be subsidies then farming and steel should have them.

You have already won, free trade has systematically dismantled the industrial complex of America, while it's advocates blame everyone else for over sea and South American job migrations. A country has the right to protect itself against companies that try and squeeze everyone else out of a market, thus section 201. We are talking world market influence here, not just internal. Using your formula of attack, we would have the ability to do the same with other resources. Letting international companies dominate world markets and crush competitors by using financial resources to undercut prices, ala Wal Mart style...? bballad you extreme capitalist you. I didn't know! :) -- joke

Free trade is the elimination of crushing tarrifs so that compteting countries can offer goods across the globe. If one undercuts domestic products in ANY country and tips the balance of world trade, then a counter balance should be applied. Leting a foreign country with it's own interests outside of yours dominate an industry critical to infrastructure and then later set it's own price when competition is eliminated is not very smart from a business continutity perspective, a political perpective, a social economical perspective or a employment perspective. You can't criticize the president for not creating jobs and supposedly letting the economy tank and then change tune when he makes a move to protect critical industry and foreign business predators from taking advantage of the situation to corner a world critical market. Unless you opose the US position of a power and wish the destruction of it's infrastructure to continue.

RC - your last line appears to be just what so many would like to see. Obviously they are showing their true colors and intents.