KarenKraft

When it's "over there," the difference between using nukes and threatening their use is nil. Indeed "using" becomes a matter of definition. Were it not for the nukes, would the West have defeated the good old CCCP? The nukes were used, as was the SDI, although neither was deployed. It's important to pick as much fly shit out of the pepper as possible, doan-cha-no? :: grin ::

Washington Times - Letter to the Editor 6/7/95 - Thomas Colton Ruthford During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits. First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bieder-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After der fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, party membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler accrued more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order". The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypsies who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen". Right wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people". Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people. When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again. The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters. Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics". Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers". Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters. -Thomas Colton Ruthford "In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up." -Pastor Martin Niemoller.

https://youtu.be/Pj7mEyjvXKA

[ tap tap ] ... this thing on?

Or, perhaps an appropriate lyrical version might be: Er marschiert im Geist in unseren Reihen mit. [ boom boom ]

You can use Pre de Provence if you have French doors. << nods in self-agreement >>

Thanks, everybody, for helping me see what is pretty much hidden in the hate-the-vets days. So, if I understand correctly, it was the same people who spat on our soldiers who then decided to make a buck lamenting the fact of their spittle. Hey, bushy-tail: I've read a bit of history on the war in Vietnam and I never really saw the blame being vested in Congress. They gave full war powers to LBJ. It was President Johnson's Rules of Engagement that guaranteed defeat from the Gulf of Tonkin to the fall of Saigon, the way I read it. Many articles I read suggested that the 58,000 American troops killed would not have died in such numbers had Barry Goldwater won in 1964. They say that he would have ended the war in short order, probably using tactical nuclear weapons. LBJ, it is said, talked a good game and was quite keen on drafting young Americans to fight and die in his blunder, but wasn't man enough to do what had to be done to win. Ever been The Wall in Washington D.C.? Wow. Words don't describe it.

We haven't known each other very long but I consider you to be a good friend. Good luck and God Speed. Karen

The Railway Man. ** choke ** ** puke ** A simple-minded leftish interpretation of a stupid story, a morality play in fact, wherein a British WWII prisoner of war was hideously tortured by a Japanese guy. Due to the trauma of that, the British fellow couldn’t cut the mustard with his wife (Nicole Kidman). Anyway the way the movie industry has twisted the tale, the real enemy was war itself and when the torturer and the tortured finally met up to confront each other, they exchanged touching letters of contrition and forgiveness. As the tears roll down Kidman’s face, the two guys, a bit older now (this a few years after the end of the war), embrace and become BFF. Right. I’m so sure. How touching. Oh, and just to let everybody know, they refused to tell the audience what horrific, nasty, unspeakable thing was done to the Brit in The Room…. Duh duh duh duuuuh! We see the beatings and the arm braking and endless torture but nobody could utter a word about the gross and monstrous thing that they did to the fellow in The Room. This being the movie business, can you guess what the ultimate torture was? Wait for it……. Wait for it……. Right: waterboarding. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. The funniest part of the movie was when one of the Brits comrades hanged himself from a bridge and, after several days of stupid melodrama, they show him still hanging there, like a salami aging in North Beach. This movie is a piece of shit.

Memorial Day I have a question: We all know that news reports are but the first draft of history. Then comes news spin, documentary films and shows, politically-motivated “docu-dramas,” e.g. Oliver Stone crap, etc. In the end, we are taught that there were no good and decent people in the [u.S.] antebellum South, that the “filthy Japs” had somehow been transformed into the victims of WWII, and so on. It is generally accepted “common knowledge” that, as the war in Vietnam was winding down and finally over for the U.S., the soldiers who came home – wounded and otherwise – were spat on, called “baby-killers,” etc. Oliver Stone’s Born of the Fourth of July (1989), for example, tells the tale, as does Jane Fonda’s Coming Home (1978). Considering the political bent of Stone and Fonda, I began wondering if, except for a few isolated incidences in places like Berkeley, etc., did that really happen? It’s out of character for the pre-Vietnam American population and the post-Vietnam population, as far as I can see. I was not around when all that was going on, and it’s hard to get reliable, untainted information. Yes, I know that the U.S. Government failed to provide adequate V.A. support for returning veterans with both physical and emotional wounds – I think that was the case since the Revolutionary War (the American Revolution). So, my question is this: but for news-spin and left-wing propaganda films and shows, how wide spread was the animosity toward our returning Vietnam veterans? Were they spat on and called “baby-killer” as a general rule by rabid and uncharacteristically involved civilians? Were they shunned and ostracized to any significant extent (as I say, more than the few isolated events in the usually suspected left-wing places? I mean from your own personal remembrance. Not from some news story you read ten years after the war was over. Do you know any returning Vietnam vets who were mistreated by family, friends, or strangers – wounded or unwounded? My nose for bullshit tells me, based upon the people who suddenly became so compassionate in the entertainment industry toward Vietnam vets (the same people who hate our current military) being the very same people (or equivalents) who opposed the war in Vietnam in the first place. Is this real or just left wing spin?

Cute Butt.

We all agree. That said, however, we also remind newly arrived readers that we distinguish between law-abiding Christian black folk and niggers.

https://youtu.be/82itSw28BoQ [begin cultural note] As used hereinabove (for those who do not follow the lingos of history) “I’m glad I’m short” does not suggest that he is extolling the virtues and benefits of a diminutive stature, but that the expiration of his military obligations is close at hand. [end cultural note]

Of course you're right, Woody. That goes without saying. But as a student of history, something has occurred to me lately. We all know that the hostility between black people and white people in the South was NOT the result of the Civil War (for non-Americans, "The War Between the States"). This is never taught in schools. The false narrative pushed in the schools was that the Civil War was about the abolition of slavery only and, when forced to be around people of color, nasty, bigoted, slack-jaw white crackers were outraged and have been taking it out on honest, decent black people ever since. This is, of course, bullshit. The mutual hatred, mistrust, and abuses came not as a result of the Civil War but as a direct and absolute result of Reconstruction. If there is a guilty party here, it is Ulysses S. Grant, the 18th President of the United States. During the Reconstruction Era, northern elements (including the Army) actively sought to disenfranchise former Confederate elected officials and to replace them with crooks. Many of these crooks were blacks from the North or "freemen" (former slaves) and they set up a corrupt system to bleed and drain not only the economy of the South but of its culture and its dignity. Most carpetbaggers were white, but at the local level, the corrupt "boss" (Mafia style) was often a black man. Blacks were allowed to abuse whites at will in many places. It was that form of corruption that led to such things as the first KKK and other white protective organizations. If a black man, for example, had money or connections, he could rape white girls and not be prosecuted. Was this rampant? Of course not. But it did happen. When it did, the offender was lynched (a person is said to be "lynched" when they are executed (usually by a mob or organized group of people) without due process of law. There were nearly 2,000 lynchings in the South and the areas north of the Mason-Dixon line. It was not become popular because white people were angry that black people lived next to them. In the South, whites and blacks lived side by side within the cultural rules of Segregation. Segregation was the salve that soothed the upheaval of Reconstruction Era abuses by blacks (and white carpetbaggers) of white people. Segregation worked because it permitted and encouraged two separate (sometimes equal, sometimes not) parallel economies. Blacks went to the black shoe maker, baker, doctor, grocery store, funeral home; whites went to the same services but only within their own, white, community. Segregation protected both economies from encroachment by the other. This system was held in place by the "Separate but Equal" doctrine, and was supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. See, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). But in 1954, the Supreme Court killed off any hope of black entrepreneurial growth and development when, in BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) it mysteriously came to the conclusion that "separate is inherently unequal." "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group...Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." At first glance, this would appear to be a huge success for black people. But as it turned out, it began the inevitable destruction of the black community, black economies, and black entrepreneurial life. The nightmare of unintended consequences reared its head with a vengeance. From school integration came hundreds of other instances where whites and blacks were forced to intermingle where many sought not to do so -- on both sides. It's great to be able to eat at the lunch counter at Woolworth's Department Store in the white section of town. It's so neat that the black diner in the black section of town goes out of business. The black diner-owner and his family move north. Same with the baker, barber, supermarket, etc. These things are just a continuation of the abuses of the Reconstruction Era. For political reasons, Democrats have replaced black entrepreneurial systems and talents with a culture of dependency. If you can't become a professional athlete, a famous singer, artist, or some other get-rich-quick career, sit on your ass, collect welfare, and augment your government benefits with some drug sales here and there. The grandson of the black diner owner no longer lives in the South. He lives in Baltimore and makes money the new way: selling drugs, selling girls, ripping somebody off someplace, looting, etc. When I see the cops facing down "angry" black jerks in the streets, I see the cops as the protectors of the American culture and the street-blacks as the homegrown carpetbaggers, exploiting anyone and everyone with the decadent zeal of a zombie. These people no longer have what some people call "a soul." Black "soul" went out with granddad's music and grandma's down home cooking. Today, "soul" is a synonym for "steal." Sure, there are legitimate issues deserving of protest in every community. But that's not what we are talking about. We're talking about the worthless monkey who burns down the only drugstore in his community and now blames white people (read: the cops) because he has to take a 2-hour bus ride to get his baby-mama a package of diapers -- for the little piece of shit she claims is his son or daughter. This is a sub-human non-culture that can trace its original birth defect all the way back to the Reconstruction Era and the Grant Administration. Tell us again which about how the North were the good guys and how the South and its people -- black and white alike -- deserved to be under the jackboot of the U.S. government and its "Slavery Through Programs." But that's just my opinion. I Might Be Wrong...

https://youtu.be/XQmO-WfEkk4