• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Stalinist Marxism in Action: Katyn Massacre, 1942

THE KATYN MASSACRE        from realclearpolitics:

The Katyn massacre was a mass murder of thousands of Polish prisoners of war (primarily military officers), intellectuals, policemen, and other public servants by the Soviet NKVD. After 3 April, 1940, at least 22,436 POWs and prisoners were executed: 15,131 POWs (most or all of them from the three camps) and at least 7,305 prisoners in western parts of Belarus and Ukraine. 

Click below for video review:


http://www.realclearhistory.com/video/2012/04/13/stalin_decapitates_poland_in_katyn.html

Obama’s War against Truth Behind Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s War Against Women

Stay the Course

Column: We will win this war on women
 
BY: – April 13, 2012 5:00 am

As a political slogan, “war on women” is so broad as to be meaningless. The very notion is ridiculous, absurd—a gimmick to quicken the heartbeats of Democratic activists and political correspondents. How can a political party that won the allegiance of half the country in the most recent election be fighting a “war” on a particular sex? Who started this war? Where are the fronts? Who are the soldiers? Will it end by treaty? Why isn’t Rand Paul demanding a formal declaration?

Does anyone seriously believe that opposing abortion is the same as opposing the Nineteenth Amendment? What about the many pro-life Democrats in this country? Are they Quislings? Will Planned Parenthood pursue charges against them under the military code of justice? And on which side are those famous lovers of women Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Eliot Spitzer? “War on women,” “99 percent,” “Buffett Rule”—they are all focus-grouped catch phrases designed to stick in the ear and dominate a news cycle or two. They are the inevitable consequence of an incumbent president with no popular record and no agenda but tax hikes.

Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York may have originated the phrase in a 2011 floor speech, but it was the Democratic congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, appointed Democratic National Committee chair that spring, who kept up the attack. Based on a close reading of Wasserman Schultz’s public statements (and you think your job is tough), as well as a careful study of my favorite MSNBC contributor, Krystal Ball, the war on women is based on Republican opposition to Obamacare and efforts to restrict abortions and eliminate public funding for them, both directly and indirectly. As it happens, large majorities oppose Obamacare and support its repeal in part or in whole, and 51 percent of the country, according to the Gallup Organization, believes that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances, while 47 percent of Americans identify as pro-life and 47 percent identify as pro-choice. These are not “extremist” positions.

What the war on women really amounts to is a battle for political power between a group of pro-life, pro-religious liberty men and women and a group of men and women who want to maintain abortion on demand and the government provision of abortion, contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization procedures as mandated under Obamacare. On one side are people such as Sarah Palin, Mitt and Ann Romney, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers; on the other side are Wasserman Schultz, Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilary Rosen, and others. If this is the war on women, we should accept nothing less than unconditional surrender.

What are the origins of this war? The gender gap in American politics has persisted since the 1980 election. In 2010, however, something unusual happened: Republicans actually won the female vote, by a single point. Independent women went AWOL on the Democrats. The disappearance of the gender gap helped contribute to the GOP’s best performance since 1946.

One of the first votes the GOP House took was to repeal Obamacare. Shortly thereafter, the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider.

This terrified Democrats. Not only did they lose women in the 2010 election, the new Republican House majority was targeting a major Democratic donor with laser-guided legislation. A GOP victory in 2012, especially one based on a narrow gender gap, would endanger seriously the abortion lobby and feminist establishment in the United States and, by extension, the future of the Democratic Party.

What to do? Win women back, either affirmatively, through a booming economy and popular initiatives, or negatively, through striking fear in the hearts of women by suggesting that Republicans want to strip them of their rights. An affirmative argument was out because the economy is not booming and Obamacare is unpopular with both sexes—and possibly with the Supreme Court, as well. That left the terror tack.

Wasserman Schultz prepared the battlefield. But it was not until recently that Wasserman Schultz’s catchphrase became Democratic mantra, echoed by Democratic officials and talking heads on MSNBC and in other Democrat-friendly media outlets. Even more recently, Republicans began to fire back.

After the initial skirmish, a March Washington Post poll showed Obama faring worse among women. The president’s approval rating may have improved in some polls in recent weeks, but the rise does not coincide with any new counteroffensive by the Democrats. The war on women has already been waged for months, and the presidential race remains competitive in polls of likely voters. Indeed, the latest Fox News poll shows Obama’s approval at a low and Romney edging out Obama in a head to head matchup. As amazing as it might seem to liberals, voters neither care about nor are aware of supercilious arguments on cable news. Their behavior is driven by the actual conditions on the ground: the economy, the deficit and debt, and the Sword of Damocles that is Obamacare.

Wars ebb and flow. If the war on women was launched with Republican votes against Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, the liberals struck back when Limbaugh was forced to apologize for referring to left-wing activist Sandra Fluke as a “slut.” But this week brought new developments from the front, when Mitt Romney pointed out correctly that more women than men have lost their jobs under Obama, when the Free Beacon reported that women are paid less than men in the Obama White House, and when Democratic adviser and overpaid consultant Hilary Rosen insulted stay-at-home moms across the country by saying Ann Romney has “never actually worked a day in her life.”

Within 24 hours, the Obama campaign had ordered and carried out the political equivalent of a summary execution, distancing itself from Rosen and forcing her to make a humiliating and half-hearted apology on the war’s primary battleground. It is too soon to say, however, whether Rosen’s gaffe was the war on women’s high-water mark, a turning point, or just another skirmish in a long, hard slog.

Fighting to win the White House and Senate, to overturn Obamacare, to reinstate the Mexico City policy, and to defund Planned Parenthood is, as Reagan once described another just war, a noble cause. There will be setbacks. There will be casualties. A surge of forces may be required. But there is one thing we will be able to say when we get back home, and we may thank God for it. Thirty years from now, when we are sitting around our fireside with our granddaughters on our knees, and they ask us, “What did you do in the great war on women?” We won’t have to say, “Well, I shoveled dirt on MSNBC.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Wasserman-Schultz, Head Democrat, Wages Her Own War against Women

Barack Obama  speaking on television the other day while distancing himself from the Hilary Rosen attack on Ann Romney, claimed to have no idea where this turmoil about American women wars started.    That was another Obamalie.   The Obama participation in the phone call to Sharon Fluke in this battle stunt orchestrated through Media Matters must have escaped the president’s porous mind.

Also escaping that mind is the fact the strategy for American Left during Obama campaign time hs been  to  avoid real issues where the president has been universally a failure, hate stories  would be woven into the language  to strenthen and expand the tempers of left wing entitlement tribes, blacks,  gays, single women, union thugs, illegals, university social science Marxists, and such  to guarantee four more years of Obamarule.

Please review the following video starring a  main character of the current  Obama Hate Play, “The 2012 War Against America Freedom”,  Ms. D. Wasserman Schultz, the Head of the Democrat Party:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/13/wasserman_schultz_romney_does_not_respect_the_priorities_of_women.html

Our Twila Brase Stars on FoxBusiness Reviewing the Real Costs of Obamacare

Obamacare’s Real Cost

One of the biggest stories of the week got me interviewed on Fox Business (TV). Charles Blahous, a trustee for Medicare authored a report damaging to Obamacare. Mr. Blahous says Obamacare “is expected to add at least $340 billion and as much as $530 billion to federal deficits while increasing federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion over the same period and by increasing amounts thereafter.” He blames double-counting and the $777 billion in premium tax subsidies. He calls on Congress to eliminate two-thirds of the law’s premium subsidies “to avoid worsening federal deficits.” Better yet, he suggests eliminating them entirely.

Will Doctors Beg Patients?

The Feds are requiring doctors to force patients to interact with their electronic medical records. A new rule requires more than 50 percent of a doctor’s patients to be able to view, download and transmit data for their electronic medical record (EMR). The rule also requires 10 percent of those patients to actually DO IT. This is the Stage 2 Meaningful Use Rule. Doctors can be financially penalized if patients refuse. “So what on earth could [doctors] do to boost such compliance? Put signs up in the waiting room? Beg the patients? Give them chocolate?” Do you want your doctors listening to your concerns and diagnosing your condition….or do you want them trying to make you follow a government mandate so they can be fully paid?

Tax on Medical Care Proposed

The Institute of Medicine on Tuesday proposed a new tax on medical care to expand public health programs. A half-percent tax was suggested as a surcharge on all health care services and health insurance. The authors acknowledge Obamacare’s new $15 billion Public Health and Prevention Fund (cut to nearly $9 million for the “doc fix” bill), but claim that is not nearly enough money. The tax, according to the report, “imposes a small amount of financial burden on the clinical encounter…[but] is unlikely to have a substantial deleterious economic effect.” But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), minority leader on the Senate Finance Committee, called the tax “an absurd and misguided proposal from an organization that is becoming increasingly irrelevant.”

Daring Challenge to Supreme Court

The media is in full-court press. They dare to call the Supreme Court justices uninformed. The Associated Press writes, “A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.” The article goes on to claim that the justices may not realize that Americans can buy a stripped down insurance product “that is broadly similar to today’s so-called catastrophic coverage policies for individuals.” That product is the “bronze plan.” The writer also contends that the law provides “another level of catastrophic insurance limited to people under age 30.”

This is nonsense. First, the “bronze plan” is a full-coverage plan, required to offer every “essential health benefit” mandated by the federal government. The difference is in what is paid out of pocket. The upfront cost is less but the plan covers only 60% of the cost of care. Furthermore, Obamacare does not provide a new catastrophic coverage plan for young people. It prohibits it for everyone over 29 years old, forcing many people off the major medical policies they have today. As Michael Carvin, attorney for the 26 states, says, “The bronze plan is not catastrophic coverage…It’s got all the minimum essential benefits in it…It’s got to have wellness, preventive, contraceptives…It’s not remotely catastrophic.” Absolutely correct.

Big Breach in Utah

Eastern European hackers have stolen 780,000 people’s medical records, including 280,000 Social Security Numbers, from the Utah Department of Health. “On March 30, they downloaded 24,000 files to computers in Eastern Europe,” according to The New York Times. “Each file contained records for hundreds of recipients.” Many were children’s records, preferred because “their identity can be exploited for years.” Already the identity of “some 10 percent” of American children has been stolen. Meanwhile, a new report reveals a rise in breaches at hospitals. Specifically, 27% of respondents had experienced a security breach in the last year, up from 19% in 2010 and 13% in 2008. How vulnerable will patients be when the National Health Information Network (national medical records system) is fully in place?

 

 



Hitler Loved Germans and Admired the English…..Stalin Hated People

Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Was Worse?

Timothy Snyder              at the New York Review of Books

La Documentation FrancaiseSoon after liberation, an emaciated child survivor is carried out of camp barracks by Soviet first-aid workers. Auschwitz, Poland, after January 27, 1945

As we recall the Red Army’s liberation of Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, sixty-six years ago today, we might ask: who was worse, Hitler or Stalin?

In the second half of the twentieth century, Americans were taught to see both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the greatest of evils. Hitler was worse, because his regime propagated the unprecedented horror of the Holocaust, the attempt to eradicate an entire people on racial grounds. Yet Stalin was also worse, because his regime killed far, far more people—tens of millions, it was often claimed—in the endless wastes of the Gulag. For decades, and even today, this confidence about the difference between the two regimes—quality versus quantity—has set the ground rules for the politics of memory. Even historians of the Holocaust generally take for granted that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, thus placing themselves under greater pressure to stress the special character of the Holocaust, since this is what made the Nazi regime worse than the Stalinist one.

Discussion of numbers can blunt our sense of the horrific personal character of each killing and the irreducible tragedy of each death. As anyone who has lost a loved one knows, the difference between zero and one is an infinity. Though we have a harder time grasping this, the same is true for the difference between, say, 780,862 and 780,863—which happens to be the best estimate of the number of people murdered at Treblinka. Large numbers matter because they are an accumulation of small numbers: that is, precious individual lives. Today, after two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.

Regina Gorzkowski-Rossi/gulaghistory.orgDrawing of a solitary confinement cell by artist Jacques Rossi, who spent nineteen years in the Gulag after he was arrested in the Stalin purges of 1936–1937

It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive. Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hitler were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. The total figure for the entire Stalinist period is likely between two million and three million. The Great Terror and other shooting actions killed no more than a million people, probably a bit less. The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people starved.

Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.

soviethistory.orgA poster from 1930. The text reads, “We will smite the kulak who agitates for reducing cultivated acreage.” From Persuasive Images: Posters of War and Revolution from the Hoover Institution Archives by Peter Paret, Beth Irwin Lewis, and Paul Paret

In 1937, as his vision of modernization faltered, Stalin ordered the Great Terror. Because we now have the killing orders and the death quotas, inaccessible so long as the Soviet Union existed, we now know that the number of victims was not in the millions. We also know that, as in the early 1930s, the main victims were the peasants, many of them survivors of hunger and of concentration camps. The highest Soviet authorities ordered 386,798 people shot in the “Kulak Operation” of 1937–1938. The other major “enemies” during these years were people belonging to national minorities who could be associated with states bordering the Soviet Union: some 247,157 Soviet citizens were killed by the NKVD in ethnic shooting actions.

In the largest of these, the “Polish Operation” that began in August 1937, 111,091 people accused of espionage for Poland were shot. In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions. The total figure of civilians deliberately killed under Stalinism, around six million, is of course horribly high. But it is far lower than the estimates of twenty million or more made before we had access to Soviet sources. At the same time, we see that the motives of these killing actions were sometimes far more often national, or even ethnic, than we had assumed. Indeed it was Stalin, not Hitler, who initiated the first ethnic killing campaigns in interwar Europe.

Until World War II, Stalin’s regime was by far the more murderous of the two. Nazi Germany began to kill on the Soviet scale only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the summer of 1939 and the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland that September. About 200,000 Polish civilians were killed between 1939 and 1941, with each regime responsible for about half of those deaths. This figure includes about 50,000 Polish citizens shot by German security police and soldiers in the fall of 1939, the 21,892 Polish citizens shot by the Soviet NKVD in the Katyn massacres of spring 1940, and the 9,817 Polish citizens shot in June 1941 in a hasty NKVD operation after Hitler betrayed Stalin and Germany attacked the USSR. Under cover of the war and the occupation of Poland, the Nazi regime also killed the handicapped and others deemed unfit in a large-scale “euthanasia” program that accounts for 200,000 deaths. It was this policy that brought asphyxiation by carbon monoxide to the fore as a killing technique.

Beyond the numbers killed remains the question of intent. Most of the Soviet killing took place in times of peace, and was related more or less distantly to an ideologically-informed vision of modernization. Germany bears the chief responsibility for the war, and killed civilians almost exclusively in connection with the practice of racial imperialism. Germany invaded the Soviet Union with elaborate colonization plans. Thirty million Soviet citizens were to starve, and tens of millions more were to be shot, deported, enslaved, or assimilated. Such plans, though unfulfilled, provided the rationale for the bloodiest occupation in the history of the world. The Germans placed Soviet prisoners of war in starvation camps, where 2.6 million perished from hunger and another half million (disproportionately Soviet Jews) were shot. A million Soviet citizens also starved during the siege of Leningrad. In “reprisals” for partisan action, the Germans killed about 700,000 civilians in grotesque mass executions, most of them Belarusians and Poles. At the war’s end the Soviets killed tens of thousands of people in their own “reprisals,” especially in the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine. Some 363,000 German soldiers died in Soviet captivity.

National Archives and Records Administration/United States Holocaust Memorial MuseumSuitcases that belonged to people deported to the Auschwitz camp. This photograph was taken after Soviet forces liberated the camp. Auschwitz, Poland, after January 1945

Hitler came to power with the intention of eliminating the Jews from Europe; the war in the east showed that this could be achieved by mass killing. Within weeks of the attack by Germany (and its Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and other allies) on the USSR, Germans, with local help, were exterminating entire Jewish communities. By December 1941, when it appears that Hitler communicated his wish that all Jews be murdered, perhaps a million Jews were already dead in the occupied Soviet Union. Most had been shot over pits, but thousands were asphyxiated in gas vans. From 1942, carbon monoxide was used at the death factories Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór, and Treblinka to kill Polish and some other European Jews. As the Holocaust spread to the rest of occupied Europe, other Jews were gassed by hydrogen cyanide at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Overall, the Germans, with much local assistance, deliberately murdered about 5.4 million Jews, roughly 2.6 million by shooting and 2.8 million by gassing (about a million at Auschwitz, 780,863 at Treblinka, 434,508 at Bełzec, about 180,000 at Sobibór, 150,000 at Chełmno, 59,000 at Majdanek, and many of the rest in gas vans in occupied Serbia and the occupied Soviet Union). A few hundred thousand more Jews died during deportations to ghettos or of hunger or disease in ghettos. Another 300,000 Jews were murdered by Germany’s ally Romania. Most Holocaust victims had been Polish or Soviet citizens before the war (3.2 million and 1 million respectively). The Germans also killed more than a hundred thousand Roma.

All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million. These figures are of course subject to revision, but it is very unlikely that the consensus will change again as radically as it has since the opening of Eastern European archives in the 1990s. Since the Germans killed chiefly in lands that later fell behind the Iron Curtain, access to Eastern European sources has been almost as important to our new understanding of Nazi Germany as it has been to research on the Soviet Union itself. (The Nazi regime killed approximately 165,000 German Jews.)

 A poster for the 1944 film Song of Russia

Apart from the inacessibilty of archives, why were our earlier assumptions so wrong? One explanation is the cold war. Our wartime and postwar European alliances, after all, required a certain amount of moral and thus historical flexibility. In 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union were military allies. By the end of 1941, after the Germans had attacked the Soviet Union and Japan the United States, Moscow in effect had traded Berlin for Washington. By 1949, the alliances had switched again, with the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany together in NATO, facing off against the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies, including the smaller German Democratic Republic. During the cold war, it was sometimes hard for Americans to see clearly the particular evils of Nazis and Soviets. Hitler had brought about a Holocaust: but Germans were now our allies. Stalin too had killed millions of people: but the some of the worst episodes, taking place as they had before the war, had already been downplayed in wartime US propaganda, when we were on the same side.

We formed an alliance with Stalin right at the end of the most murderous years of Stalinism, and then allied with a West German state a few years after the Holocaust. It was perhaps not surprising that in this intellectual environment a certain compromise position about the evils of Hitler and Stalin—that both, in effect, were worse—emerged and became the conventional wisdom.

 Churchill, Stalin, and William Averell Harriman, Moscow, August 1942

New understandings of numbers, of course, are only a part of any comparison, and in themselves pose new questions of both quantity and quality. How to count the battlefield casualties of World War II in Europe, not considered here? It was a war that Hitler wanted, and so German responsibility must predominate; but in the event it began with a German-Soviet alliance and a cooperative invasion of Poland in 1939. Somewhere near the Stalinist ledger must belong the thirty million or more Chinese starved during the Great Leap Forward, as Mao followed Stalin’s model of collectivization. The special quality of Nazi racism is not diluted by the historical observation that Stalin’s motivations were sometimes national or ethnic. The pool of evil simply grows deeper.

The most fundamental proximity of the two regimes, in my view, is not ideological but geographical. Given that the Nazis and the Stalinists tended to kill in the same places, in the lands between Berlin and Moscow, and given that they were, at different times, rivals, allies, and enemies, we must take seriously the possibility that some of the death and destruction wrought in the lands between was their mutual responsibility. What can we make of the fact, for example, that the lands that suffered most during the war were those occupied not once or twice but three times: by the Soviets in 1939, the Germans in 1941, and the Soviets again in 1944?

The Holocaust began when the Germans provoked pogroms in June and July 1941, in which some 24,000 Jews were killed, on territories in Poland annexed by the Soviets less than two years before. The Nazis planned to eliminate the Jews in any case, but the prior killings by the NKVD certainly made it easier for local gentiles to justify their own participation in such campaigns. As I have written in Bloodlands, where all of the major Nazi and Soviet atrocities are discussed, we see, even during the German-Soviet war, episodes of belligerent complicity in which one side killed more because provoked or in some sense aided by the other. Germans took so many Soviet prisoners of war in part because Stalin ordered his generals not to retreat. The Germans shot so many civilians in part because Soviet partisans deliberately provoked reprisals. The Germans shot more than a hundred thousand civilians in Warsaw in 1944 after the Soviets urged the locals to rise up and then declined to help them. In Stalin’s Gulag some 516,543 people died between 1941 and 1943, sentenced by the Soviets to labor, but deprived of food by the German invasion.

Were these people victims of Stalin or of Hitler? Or both?

January 27, 2011, 3:30 p.m.

Comment:   If the contest is indeed which dictator was the more heinous, the more evil,  the more  devious and psychopathic, WITHOUT A DOUBT,   it was Josef Visarianovich Djugashvili, Comrade Stalin.    The main  problem here is that our beloved America was involved in a fighting war against the German dictator.    A second problem is that Stalin didn’t kill as many Jews as Hitler,  nor did he base much of his leadership on ‘cleansing’ the population of this particular group.

Stalin was determined to eliminated Jews feverishly when in that particular psychopathic mood.  Yet many of his Soviet comrades participating in the killings of other Soviet citizens were Jewish themselves.  Western historians seem to want to avoid popularizing dictator Stalin for the profoundly psychopathic cold blooded politician-absolute dictator  which he indeed was.  

Stalin’s criminality was performed for about 30 years of his reign.   He was a terrorist even murdering his own ‘compatriots’, intentionally using such allies in his weapon to maintain terror among the Soviet population for nearly all of  these thirty years.    His numbers of victims ‘bury’ Hitler’s.

Hitler’s power to cause group murder did not begin with his Jewish solution  in 1942.   One could argue his first mass attack of extermination was against the socialist-Marxist  Ernst Roehm culminating in the action of the “Night of the Long Knives.”  

The extermination policy to eliminate the Jews  was finalized  in 1942,  but one can claim that the terror against the German Jewish population  as a maujor  Hitler policy began in earnest in 1938.      Hitler’s ‘Caligula’ nature lasted  less than   seven years, most of it in battle for the survival of his  Third Reich.

Stalin slaughtered anyone his demented mind suspected of being able and possibly liked by others.    Fear was shared by all, the close, the distant, tall and short, male and female……by all, even the establishment   buraucrats closest  to Stalin himself.

I suppose I have read and reread  a couple hundred texts in my lifetime beyond my formal university education of study of these two human creatures.     Historians have gone out of their way to brutalize Hitler beyond reality.   But Stalin was  a Marxist dictator.   University sources these days cover for Josef and tend to rewrite history or  as all Marxists do, invent the good and ignore the grotesque on all fronts.

The enemy of the Marxists, as we well know today with the current  leftwing Washington administration,  is any collection of people who are more successful than others and are NOT Marxists dictating what success  should or shouldn’t be.     The hated in America these days are white, male, ungay, unsingle, Christian, conservative Jews who follow the Torah,  farmers, women who stay at home to raise their children and small town and farm people  among others who have not been Marxified at  a modern American university.

I have purposely not read the above article  until  I have written my above contribution.   I shall now read it thoroughtly.  ghr

Upon reading the above  Book Review article it was written as I expected.    As Marxism grows in a more Sovietized America, Josef V. Stalin’s repuatation will be further cleansed.     One of the most common adages during the Stalinist years of Marxism  in the good old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was:

“THE FUTURE IS KNOWN…….IT’S THE PAST THAT KEEPS CHANGING.”

My, how true  regarding our present president Barack Hussein Obama.     He and his henchmen  and women rely on the short memories of the confused citizen…..confused by intention so that the voting  can’t remember exactly if anything truthfull has  ever been uttered  by their  beloved Obama.

A Calm Alan Dershowitz Reviews Charges Against George Zimmerman

Alan Dershowitz has been around television cameras for most of my adult life.    He is a super lefty, always pleased with himself, and a devotee of the worst  features of the American Civil Liberties Union.   When confronted with national cameras, he’d quickly pose   a dramatic aria noise brow-beating opponent views.

Lawyer Dershowitz must be aging as a showman East Coast Lefty.   He writes at CNN:

“Prosecutor’s quandary: Zimmerman may be indicted, then acquitted”

Editor’s note: Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School.

(CNN) — On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.

Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.

Media reports suggest that police found Zimmerman with grass stains on the back of his shirt, bloody bruises on the back of his head and other indicia that may support his contention that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the ground when Zimmerman shot him.

We don’t know what Martin’s body or clothing show, other than the fatal bullet wound. If there are no comparable bruises or grass stains and if the bullet wound and powder residue establish that the gun was fired at very close range, this too might support a claim of self-defense.

Then there is a recorded cry for help, which, if it turns out to be the voice of Martin, would undercut the defense — if the voice analysis passes scientific muster and is deemed admissible into evidence.

There may be additional forensic evidence — or witnesses — of which we are now unaware, though it is unlikely there is a “smoking gun.”

Finally, there is the overarching and historically painful reality that an unarmed black teenager lies dead at the hand of an armed Hispanic man who ignored a dispatcher’s advice not to follow and engage the “suspect,” and who may have — and this too is forensically unclear — uttered a racial epithet while chasing him.

These “facts” give rise to several possible scenarios of what may actually have occurred on that dark rainy night. Under the Florida self-defense statute, it matters greatly what happened, most especially who “initially provoke[d] the use of force,” and who started the physical encounter.

If Zimmerman initially provoked the deadly encounter, then he cannot invoke any “stand your ground” defense. He would then be under a legal obligation to “exhaust … every reasonable means to escape.”

Though this statute is anything but a model of clarity, it does suggest that whoever “provokes” a deadly encounter has a heavy burden of justification in claiming self-defense. But the statute doesn’t define “provokes,” and that ambiguous word may hold the key to the outcome of this tragic case.

If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman’s account that Martin blindsided him with a punch is believed, then Zimmerman did not provoke the encounter. But if provocation includes following the victim and harassing him, then Zimmerman may well qualify as a provocateur. Moreover, a jury may believe that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation by grabbing Martin. This would almost certainly constitute provocation.

But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can’t escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was.

All this goes to show how factually driven this case is under Florida law. And we don’t yet know all the facts. The special prosecutor, who has said she will not use a grand jury to decide whether to indict Zimmerman, has an obligation to consider all the evidence and to apply the law to the facts.

All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?

That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.

Moreover, the Florida statute provides an additional layer of protection to a defendant claiming self-defense: A judge must decide whether the defendant is “immune from prosecution,” that is, if the judge believes his actions fall under the law of self-defense.

So the following mixed outcome is certainly possible: The special prosecutor indicts; the judge does or doesn’t grant immunity; if he doesn’t, the jury acquits.

Many people would be unhappy with such a mixed outcome, but it is not the job of the law to make people happy.

Below is a video of Dershowitz’ claim that the Zimmerman arrest affidavit is   “Irresponsible and Unethical”.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/12/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_arrest_affidavit_irresponsible_and_unethical.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers