I am not an expert on Hitler. But my father is.

He toured post-war Germany extensively in 1957 and ’58 as a child performer. And he often recounts the stories. He befriended  teenage Lebensborn children (if you don’t know what Lebensborn children are …well …before you post anymore about Hitler you should read about them). He visited an SS widow and got a peek at her husband’s uniform and Luger (that he’d committed suicide with), she had stored in an old trunk, in the attic.

These and other intense experiences in Germany sent my father on a life-long quest to understand this sociopath (Hitler) and the country that allowed itself to be dragged into one of the darkest chapters in world history. My dad is a Hitler/Nazi buff the way Indiana Jones’ dad was a Holy Grail buff.

As the son of a man with this hobby (one might call obsession) I learned a lot about Hitler and the Third Reich just by osmosis, growing up. My father would weave WWII stories into his sermons. He would talk about new books he was reading on the subject. When I was nine-years-old I bought him a book on the battle of Stalingrad for Christmas. Not a tie or a pair of socks. A book …on the battle …of Stalingrad. Yeah …it was kinda like that.

The thing my father and I have often discussed, through the years, is the eye-rolling art of comparing American presidents to Hitler. It is such an absurdity we find it amusing …and frustrating. It’s often just a punch line. Like the Soup Nazi wasn’t really a Nazi. He was just mean. The Nazi part made it funny. You know …over-the-top. Like “grammar Nazi” or “spelling Nazi.” Nobody is really a “Nazi.” It’s our representation of something we consider jarring, strident, intractable and inhumane.

But the truth about Nazis isn’t funny at all. It’s bloody and horrible and gut churning. And it involves machine guns and butchery and inhumanity on a scale that takes your breath away. Nobody is really a “soup Nazi” …unless they served it in a concentration camp.

The idea of comparing an American president to Hitler is just as absurd …from any angle, in any context. The American system ITSELF pretty much prevents “Hitlers” from showing up. And America ITSELF is anathema to what Hitler was trying to create. An American ANYTHING or ANYONE is hard to fit into the Hitler model. It’s just not apples to apples.

There are some fundamental things to understand about Hitler:

1. He took over a small, failing state that didn’t have separated government, enumerated powers or checks and balances. It’s difficult for a guy like that to show up here, in this system.

2. His entire political career was violent from the beginning. There was always death in his wake. He didn’t just suddenly “turn” violent. It was a pattern …as it always is with sociopaths. This is THE most important thing to watch; the violence. I always keep an eye on who is rioting …breaking things …throwing rocks and bombs. It doesn’t make them Nazis. But it signals how far they’re willing to go.

3. He entered office with his own personal military construct (the SS) with allegiance to him ONLY. They would carry out things the regular military would never carry out: i.e. the murder of private citizens and political opponents. Nothing like that exists or COULD exist in America. We simply wouldn’t allow it.

4. He didn’t start out just killing Jews. He started out euthanizing people with special needs …for the betterment of the care-givers’ lives. (You can decide which side of the aisle favors the extermination of “inconvenient” people).

5. He disarmed the population, then nationalized healthcare and education. (Two-out-of-three of those are Bernie Sanders moves …But, guess what? Bernie isn’t Hitler either …not by a long shot)

The list goes on and on. But the deal is this:

Hitler was a real life murdering sociopath. He wasn’t just a charismatic speaker who incrementally fell into bad behavior. He wasn’t just a racist corrupted by unfettered power. In other words, you or I probably couldn’t end up being Hitler. A garden variety KKK leader probably couldn’t end up being Hitler either …or a community organizer …or a New York real-estate tycoon. It’s not that easy or simple.

NONE of our American presidents have ever been Hitler. But the people of Germany certainly thought FDR was a murdering dictator when B-17s started dropping bombs on them. This is why you have to KNOW what you believe and why you believe it. Good guys and bad guys are often in the eyes of the beholder. And they often look similar in the fog of conflict. I would imagine Japanese Americans in internment camps wondered if their president was Hitler-like. Nope. Horrible act …but not close to Hitler.

To that point, ironically, the American president who could’ve actually been likened to Hitler (before Hitler) in some of his methods was …wait for it …Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln broke more constitutional law than any other president in U.S history. He imprisoned political opponents without due process. He suspended habeas corpus. He was personally responsible for the deaths of six hundred thousand people.

He invaded countries that had declared their own sovereignty and forced them back into a union they didn’t want to be a part of. He unilaterally annexed Nevada, without 60 thousand residents, (a pre-requisite for becoming a state) in order to carry it and win the 1864 election. In other words, he pretty much rigged it.

And when he was killed by one of the highest paid and most famous actors of his day (ironic …don’t you think?), the actor screamed “thus always to tyrants!” (in latin) because the man thought he was being a patriot for ridding the world of a dictator. But he wasn’t …and he didn’t.

Lincoln did all of those things to end and win the Civil War. And today we love him for it …as we should. Because in the end, his vision was right …even though his methods were suspect in the heat of the moment.

When people think they’re seeing a Hitler, they might actually – sometimes – be seeing something closer to a Churchill. Before WWII everyone thought Churchill was the big bad wolf. His own people hated him and thought he was a Hitler type character (again …pre-Hilter). But he just kept saying, “guys …I’m telling you. This Hitler guy is the real problem. Not me.” And he turned out to be right. There’s a difference between an abrasive leader who makes you uncomfortable …and a despot.

Now, people are comparing Donald Trump to Hitler. And the countdown has officially begun, to …well …I don’t know …but something really bad. I get that someone who is combative with the press and who wants to vet refugees and shut down open immigration fits the bill some are always looking for when it comes to finally getting their “Hitler” villain.

But if you study enough about it, you realize the guy vetting and banning refugees is probably not Hitler …the guy CREATING refugees probably is.

If we keep looking for Hitler in every United States president we disagree with, we’re not going to recognize the real one when he actually shows up …in a different country.



1,093 thoughts on “THIS HITLER NONSENSE …

      • Why is Trump such a terrible guy? Because he dont take a back seat to the Liberal Elites that have been lying to us through their teeth for their whole term in the Government?, Because he wants people to be able to choose what when and where and IF they buy Healthcare? Remember Hitler forced Healthcare on his people as well, if fact Obama’s is far closer to Hitler in his actions than Mr Trump will ever be, Trump was not my first choise either, but since all this drama has taken place I realize something, the Demoncrats are surely destroying this country, and a bunch of Republicans seem to want to help them do it, Because if Mr Trump cant fix this country, or isnt permitted to by the elite politicians, it is going to have to come down to we the people, taking back control, as we should have already done, so you better pray that you allow Trump to fix this country, because once we pull out the stops, and start the REAL REVOLUTION, it isnt going to be pretty


        • I just go crazy listening to the intellectual laziness of the term “elites”. Yeah, people who have studied an issue and know their talking about, you know, “elites”. Obviously you haven’t been keeping up on the comments in this blog or you would have seen that Hitler didn’t in fact force healthcare on the country, but hey, your mind is made up. The Founding Fathers understood that Government ≠ Business and Business ≠ Government. Business is a terrible model for so much of Government and vice versa, but hey, that’s elite book knowledge, right? The American public was smart enough last time a business tyrant came around, Ross Perot, to reject the deeply flawed premise of Fascism.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Kevin, you are confusing elites with scholars. Elitism is an attitude of superiority. Scholars are folks that have in depth study their subject and I am not necessarily talking about college professors although there are scholars among them. It is probably difficult to be a scholar in more than one area of knowledge. A scholar of molecular biology has expertise in inorganic, organic, physical, analytical, and bio chemistry as well as advanced calculus and statistics. They probably also have knowledge of advanced physics as well and knowledge of physiology and molecular biology. You can figure out the requirements to be a scholar in other fields. The elites are the intellectually lazy or the narcissist.


            • I appreciate your thoughtful reply… you are right, there is some confusion all around when that term is bandied about. I’d say that at least half the people using it are not referring to people that make a living knowing their subject matter. But you also know that half the people that use that term are just using pop-culture jargon that is meaningless. It’s kind of like the President’s one-size-fits-all use of “Fake News” which doesn’t differentiate between actual fake news and news that he disagrees with.

              Liked by 1 person

          • “…,people who have studied an issue and know what they’re talking about…”


            They typically know what they’re LYING about, making their LIES all that much more despicable. A perfect example is Hillary’s “Public Position/Private Position” statement.

            And it’s not just the Democrats – there are some Republicans who are long past their “retire by” dates too.

            Perot a fascist? Who do you think you’re fooling? Perot might have put us on the right course, who knows.

            The founding fathers? They understood serving in government positions was a duty and an honor, NOT a CAREER. And yes, they tended to be the SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMEN of their day, because that ensured they were not beholden to the various evils that now control the Democrats as much, or really more, than the Republicans.

            You make a vague, unsupported claim that Hitler did NOT force health care on the country. You should read up on the topic, you might learn something, but your whole post shows exactly what was mean when the term “elite” was used – you people who are just SO convinced you know everything and you do know a lot, it just turns out that much if not most of you know is simply wrong! Maybe, if you had any evidence to back up your claim, this could be the SINGLE THING in your WHOLE POST that might have some basis in truth. But it might also be just a matter of point of view, given all the “medical necessity” laws passed at Hitler’s behest that did in fact affect the whole country and started the mass murders going.


      • Nixon WAS a terrible guy! Between him and Kissinger they manipulated the South Vietnamese into leaving the Paris Peace talks in 1968 and so dispirited Johnson that he basically refused to run again, and handed Nixon the election. One of the first things he did was appoint Kissinger as his Sec. of State, and between Aug. 1968 and Nov. 1975 Nixon and Kissinger were directly responsible for the MURDER OF 31,102 AMERICAN SOLDIERS in Vietnam, all so tricky dickie could become POTUS! As for trumpence, with his background in racism (him and his daddy were sued three times for racial discrimination in government supported housing in New York in the 1970’s), misogyny, narcissism, bankruptcy, law suits to get out of paying the contracts that he had signed, turning in foreign workers to the INS to get them deported so he would not have to pay them for demolishing the building where trump tower now stands, badgering witnesses, judges, and politicians at 140 letters and spaces because he is the TWITter king, is an embarrassment to the world, and his attempting to portray Vladimir (IV) Putin as something other than the venal butcher that he is, should be an affront to EVERY PEACE LOVING AMERICAN! But when anyone says the truth about him they get blasted as not being fair to the orange haired one.


  1. Interesting read. I watched “Nazis:Evolution of Evil–In Power” this morning on American History Channel and couldn’t help but be amazed at how subtly Hitler was able to convince nearly all Germans to follow him. And how nearly every “program” that he put into place was echoed in Hillary Clinton’s speeches this past election! It was truly frightening! I would recommend seeing this show as well as reading this.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I place a lot of blame on the parties that wrote up the agreement to end World War I that created the conditions that allowed the rise of Hitler and his NAZI party. They really were unfair to the German people. And yes, it is scary just how much of what they did is seen today in the action of Democrats and their supporters, but let’s stop short of calling them NAZIs or they’ll accuse us of “hate speech” even though they can do it all day long and call it justified.


  2. What a great article — articulates, and well, in a reasoned manner, how off-base comparing anyone and anything to which someone objects, to the H-person or the H-event.

    Dr. Ed Goodman, a professor with Holocaust expertise, pointed out the vulgarity in this unfortunate habit of mind, in which every disappointment is “an Auschwitz” and so forth.

    I was born after this massacre of my relatives — heard about it from the age of 4 on, by people who had either survived it or been indelibly traumatized by it, including having been told that if one hadn’t been there, one couldn’t imagine it, though given the amount of information I and my sister were not spared, we too (one generation after) have been mightily affected by it, in ways that my colleague Rabbi Leah-Beth Novick (earlier, Congresswoman Bella Abzug’s right-hand person) pointed out that it’s been hard for us to actually get the grief-work done. Meanwhile, my generation largely responded by being visibly, immediately responsive to the trouble-spots in the world — anything that even began to look like what the beginnings of the Holocaust had looked like.

    When people fling these comparisons around as an attempt to push whatever buttons they can and get people reactive rather than rational, it is beyond vulgar — it is manipulative, and it is in fact bullying. Why not have a rational conversation about what is happening now, without shutting down the flow of discourse by leaping to push that overused, misused H-person/H-event/H-adjective button? This is so offensive, and I do thank you for shedding some light on this.

    I particularly appreciate point #4 — how the disabled and partially disabled are treated leaves a lot to be desired.

    Thank you, Regie, for shedding some light on this.

    Liked by 4 people

    • before you share this article maybe you should consider the following items:
      Item 1 a small failing state … Germany was a small failing state?

      Item 3 He entered into office with his on military construct (the SS) … actually Hitler had the SA, part of the German National Socialist Party, NAZI, as his strong arm force from 1933 until he had them disbanded. During the Night of the Long Knives June 30 to July 2, 1934, when Rhoem their leader was arrested, executed, and most of their leaders were also.

      Item 4 He did not start out just killing Jews… the mentally ill, the handicapped, the homosexual, the Gypsies (the CORRECT TERM is the Roma), the Communist, and later anyone whop spoke out against him.

      Item 5 He disarmed the population, … GERMANS were not allowed to own guns, except for the very wealthy (who could buy anything they wanted), the military, the police forces, were the only ones ALLOWED to have weapons!

      In Germany up to 1933 when Reichstag burned, and Hitler was asked to take over the Presidency of Germany, which he did and by the end of that year he had seized power, and there was no one who could take him out! Then he formed the SS and put Goering in charge of the Prussian Secret Police, who moved them to Berlin, and their postal address was Geheime Staatspolizei or as the German Postal service abbreviated it GESTAPO! The problem with trumpence is that while he does not have the cojones to become a hitler some of his advisors most certainly do and given the chance to set off WWIII they would and not even bat and eye brow over it!


      • That’s some impressive googling you did there Lois, I think you are being a bit over the top saying Item 1 is wrong, Germany was a failing state and a lot smaller than it was before WW1, they had to pay huge amounts of reparations and give up about 1/4 of their country also your Item 3 is incorrect Saal-Schutz that later become the Schutzstaffel both had the initals SS. Saal-Schutz was the guard unit Hitler setup with NSDAP volunteers way before 1933, I believe Schutzstaffel was what Himler renamed them in 1929.


      • You mean:

        “(the POLITICALLY CORRECT TERM is the Roma), the Communist (the correct current term is the Cultural Marxists, aka “liberals”, “democrats”, “Clintonistas”, “Obamists”….)

        As for the SS/SA, aren’t they the guys who rioted and rampaged in the streets, beating people up and burning things down when their candidate didn’t win……….?!

        Ermmm, bit like the snowflakes, “liberals” and other people upset that their candidate didn’t win and so are rioting and rampaging in the streets, beating people up and burning things down demanding the election should be re-run until the right electorate win, or, better still, the election result ignored, and a result that wasn’t campaigned on, or voted on, substituted?!


      • PS Re Item 4 “He did not start out just killing Jews… the mentally ill, the handicapped, the homosexual, the Gypsies”.

        Isn’t it the “liberals” and “democrats” who support killing the babies that are likely to be mentally ill, handicapped, just an inconvenience, or plain unwanted?

        And euthanizing those whose lives are no longer worth living, voluntarily, of course, at the start (just like abortions would only amount to a few hundred, maybe just a few dozen, serious cases a year).

        And remind me, when the “democrats” and “liberals” first started proposing the aborting and euthanizing of the unwanted, I don’t think they included Arabs, but weren’t Gypsies included with the “N……”, sorry, Coloureds, or is it Blacks, today?!

        Oh, and talking of Arabs, remind me, isn’t it the “liberals” and “democrats” who support those who support the stoning, throwing off buildings, or otherwise disposing of “the homosexual”?!


  3. Great article. But, we don’t “all” love Abraham Lincoln. I’ve always despised him and consider him the worst POTUS in history for exactly the reasons you cite here. “His heart was in the right place” is a terrible excuse for what he did (or, for that matter, what anybody does when they violate ethics, accepted law, or basic rules of humanity). You nailed it when you say Lincoln is the closest thing to an American Hitler we’ve ever seen. You also nail it when you suggest that the guy who CREATES refugees is closer to Hitler than the guy who bans refugees. I’ve spent the better part of the morning wondering why exactly we haven’t bombed the Assad regime into complete annihilation and sent SEAL Team 6 in to assassinate Assad himself.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I can’t decide whether, when you say:

      “You also nail it when you suggest that the guy who CREATES refugees is closer to Hitler than the guy who bans refugees. I’ve spent the better part of the morning wondering why exactly we haven’t bombed the Assad regime into complete annihilation and sent SEAL Team 6 in to assassinate Assad himself.”

      You realise Obama is responsible for the refugees and you are pleasantly surprised he hasn’t caused even more refugees by doing that:

      Or whether you think that Assad created the civil war?!


    • Perhaps because, after pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan too quickly, we’ve seen them become safe havens, breeding grounds, for terrorists, as has Syria, as have other places Obama destabilized during his time in office. I believe it was PNAC that laid out a plan to slowly work on draining the swamp before it overwhelmed up. Events of the day forced some changes in that plan perhaps, but had we stuck to it we would not be in the mess we are today. A chilling prediction in a book comparing Obama to Carter came true – Carter destabilized Iran and created one of the most vile terrorist supporting governments of our time. Obama has set to work to destabilize much of North Africa, the Middle East and beyond. Like Saddam Hussein, Assad, vile as he is, serves a purpose. It’s up to the people in Iran, the people in Syria, the people in Egypt (and everywhere else), to rid themselves of dictators and terrorists. We can lend a hand, but we shouldn’t be the ones kicking things off so much. Not in so many places at once, anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Are you aware of the atrocities of the wars that were started in the Middle East in two countries? One that only had a connection to training camps for Al Qaeda and the other with connections to…. not a damn thing.

    Attacking Iraq, who had done nothing to the US and had zero terrorist cells, Resulted in the formation of ISIS. ISIS would not have formed had those wars not been declared.

    As I see it all of the blood shed that has occurred; All of the lives & limbs lost, the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorous meaning, babies, if they are born at all will suffer an array of deformities. Not one single good thing has resulted from those wars, they are the catalyst for causing more unrest in the Middle East and causing more wars. That blood is on the hands of a President and the House and Senate of this nation… and it continues to spill.

    Fear mongering was a tool used to this end. One would think everyone, if they did not already know how it is used would certainly know now.

    Obama had a hell of a time dealing with the mess that he inherited from the Bush Administration and given the plate he was handed managed to make a little progress in undoing the damage. It’s a very sticky situation, making any improvements whatsoever was a plus.

    And that was just in regard to the messes that are the Middle Eastern wars. He made much more progress in regard to economic matters and the like.

    Now we have Trump and his counsel who are helping in driving us right back to square one of the Middle Eastern issues… and threatens to take us far beyond. Thought Abu Grhaib was an utterly sickening element? Trump believes Water Boarding is too kind. No doubt he is in it for the sickest of all possible atrocities.

    We have a Senate and House that are majority Republican who, like the VP, even though they see the edge of the cliff seem to be falling in line and marching along. Probably enticed by what measures they will get pushed through by selling their souls.

    And these unreliable soul sellers are prepared to now extend their reach by appointing a clearly far right Supreme Court judge. A man who himself, in spite of his better judgement, will cave. Because of feeling he owes someone something, that is what signing on the dotted in a contract with Satan means.

    So, yes the US is set up with a process that is supposed to protect us from falling into the Hitler scenario, but, as we can plainly see, as was warned by the forefathers, it is not an unbreakable system. As warned, if this democracy is to end it will not come from outside this country, such as an attack, or war, it will crumble from within.

    At the heart of all of this nightmare? Greed. Another element forethought and warned of by our founders….

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” -Samuel Adams

    That quote is a message to Trump and his cohorts… a message to ward off those who would see this country under and authoritarian regime. The hands they are to lick? “We The People”. Had to clarify. Given their twisted theme they would likely somehow use it to support their agenda.

    Liked by 3 people

      • ladyscot

        What makes you think they were terrorists? They were people brought in on a slight chance they might know where one was hiding. The prisoners at Abu Grhaib were not found guilty of any crimes. Seymour Hersh, a noted revered American historian, was privy to seeing the videos of Abu Grhaib in their entirety. He wrote of the images of Abu Grhaib the public did not see. Images so disturbing they were not allowed to be aired on our TV’s or shared with anyone other than a select few. They went so far as castrating and sexually assaulting babies in front of their parents. Seymour was horrified by the things he witnessed.

        In Afghanistan where it all began the locals were told to “offer up any information that might lead to a terrorist?”. One can use there imagination on how the “asking” was performed. People there were turning in people just to be left alone, maybe people they had owed money to and other such things. They turned in people who had no ties to Al Qaeda whatsoever. That is an example of how these kinds of things typically go. In other words the people that were being tortured were “innocent”.

        Those are “atrocities”, they are, CRIMES. Crimes against humanity. Such as those performed by the Nazi’s under Hitler’s rule.

        You seem to follow the idea that all Muslims are terrorists. Hitler vilified the Jews too. Most German people were walked right into supporting his agenda and you are behaving as one of those in asking such a question.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The truly selective outrage and skewed moral compass that allows the debased conflating of Hitler’s systematic and unparalleled monstrous slaughter of an entire people with the US military. Anti-semitism is the godfather of racism and the gateway to fascism, tyranny and war, it is not to be regarded as the enemy of the Jewish people, I learned, but as the common enemy of humanity and of civilization and has to be fought against very tenaciously for that reason, most especially in its current most virulent form of Islamic Jihad. You do quite a disservice to Muslims as well as to all peoples who endure brutal totalitarianism and theocratic fascism here by making perfect the enemy of the good.


      • Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Isis, Saddam Hussein, Urgs, a 13 yo Afghani combatant, tea party members, conservatives, et al; have all been accused of being terrorists (and criminals). Having spent 26 years in the military, having studied about torture, military history and International Law; there is no standard of what a terrorist is, nor agreements/laws on how to treat them. Under the Original Patriot Act, you could have said/e-mailed incindiery comments about Pres Bush, been arrested as a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo Bay. The US gov’t sent a Canadian Of Pakistani birth around the world to be interrogated/tortured – research Mahar Arar.

        Like military combatants, you first have to define what a terrorist is. Our last three presidents have all used the “terrorist” word too easily, when some of the actions were simply criminal. We have criminal laws and Laws of armed conflict. By definition, terrorists, are not defined under either one! Too easy, as has been proven historically, for someone to accuse “you” of being a terrorist and the having someone torture you!

        Liked by 1 person

        • There are many definitions of terrorism the first being…

          ~ The use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change.

          Out of the gate the reason given for going into Iraq was because the Bush administration; to include Cheney and Rumsfeld. Using a traumatized US population following the events of 911, they fear mongered us into believing that Iraq had…

          1. A role in the events of 911.
          2. They were harboring terrorists.
          3. They had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could reach the US in as little as 45 minutes.

          None of the above ended up being true.

          Using those excuses, they began with the Shock and Awe where they carpet bombed the city of Baghdad. A horrific sight that was aired live on all major networks. A You Tube search will show the devastation. Right then and there those people were subjected to the fallout for years to come. That was only the beginning.

          Later after it was revealed that there were no WMDs, nor Al Qaeda training camps. That is when they decided to give the invasion a name… “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

          The next big issue (there were lots of issues, LOTS) but sticking with the topic… The next malfunction to come after the mistake to invade at all was, Abu Grhab. Then next it was the war crimes in, Fallujah. Arguably the worst of all. This all happened before 2004.

          The attack on Iraq was a, Preemptive war. It was the first time in 214 years of the existence of these United States that one had been executed. That is because it is unconstitutional. It is “Illegal”.

          There were so many laws broken in regard to many, many of the moves made under George W. Bush beginning with it being a “preemptive war”… but it also falls into our own very first citation when defining, “terrorism”……

          ~ It is the use of violence or threat of violence in order to purport a political, religious, or ideological change.

          – Use of violence?

          See: “WAR”

          – To purport a political, religious or ideological change?

          See: “PROJECT IRAQI FREEDOM” where the intent was to democratize the nation of, Iraq.

          These are very serious crimes. That it has gone on this long and is now being labeled the “War On Terror” is nothing less than an attempt by the law breakers who got us into this mess to continue their mode of operation of taking no responsibility wrong doing. The MO of not taking responsibility began with ignoring intelligence warning of the attacks of 911 from the very beginning. At which time, though they certainly could have, they took no actions whatsoever to prevent.

          Now this brings us to, Trump. What are he and his counsel doing? Well at this particular time they are doing a great deal of fear mongering. Making bombastic speeches warning us of impending terrorist attacks. Promising to “wipe terrorism off the face of the, Earth”. They’re not only “fear mongering”, that promise is defined as, “war mongering”.

          The behavior coming from this current administration is terrifying our military. Particularly those over seas. Those who had worked for years to bring about some kind of defining moment in which they could exit this nightmare. It is very difficult to believe anyone in the military would be in any way supportive of the Trump administration. But especially those who know all of the things I have just laid out.

          Liked by 2 people

          • By accusing President Trump of fear-mongering you are ignoring actual facts. He speaks not about hypothetical phantoms in order to secure a voting base and spread paranoid hysteria–that is more the preferred M.O. of peacenick Democrats and leftists who never met a member of the “oppressed” they didn’t want to cuddle by the fire and nurture into a future voter–No, Trump speaks of reality when he points to actual history, the world-wide attacks of radical Islam, and the publicly announced certainty that ISIS operatives will be embedded with refugees.

            When Trump was elected, he took over a government and country that had been morphed by Obama’s promise to “fundamentally change” America. Translation: I will make this country uber-liberal and import Islam whether the people like it or not.

            As of now, we don’t know which public restroom we are supposed to use, but we do know that our female children are supposed to share toilets and showers with anybody claiming to be a female. We have small businesses run out of business and burdened with huge fines for practicing their religion. We have school children being taught that our President is a Nazi and who are not permitted to watch his inauguration. These and many other left-radical changes are the direct result of the “hope and change ” promised by the Islamophiliac Obama, who has endangered us by refusing to acknowledge the very real threat we face in radical Islam.

            The societal damage perpetrated with guilt trips by liberals on the 68% of the majority population simply for expressing concerns about national security and the securing of our southern border far outweigh any appropriate nervousness experienced by being warned of threats we know are real and which have already been manifested in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Ohio State University, Arizona, on a domestic flight ( the shoe bomber), and the over 100 terrorists arrested by the FBI last year, as well as numerous plots that have been thwarted.

            Bitch, please…

            Liked by 2 people

      • Do you hide on Hallowe’en?

        From Witches?!

        After all, you KNOW they exist, DON’T YOU!!!

        Hundreds of thousands have confessed to the fact!

        Under torture!!

        Some of it the Medieval equivalent of Waterboarding!!!

        So Witches MUST exist!!!!!!!


    • You are so far to one side that if someone has a different opinion, they are wrong. You can’t have a normal conversation about politics when someone has a differing point of view. The sky is not going to fall. You protestor and Hollywood loses are the minority.


    • The hyperventilating faux outrage of the champagne socialist who regurgitates a progressivism for imbeciles anti-Americanism and the accompanying fatuous nonsense to which they subscribe are also the same ones which have never met a 3rd world warlord, theocratic fascist figure or tin pot revolutionary that elicit any similar degree of moral outrage but with America insist on making perfect the enemy of the good and think nothing of sneering at those US men and women in military uniform who protect you while you sleep. The populism and nativism with which you in your ham-fistedly attempt to conflate reducto ad Hitlerum with authoritarianism has long been a phenomenon in US politics from it’s very beginnings and largely a red herring. The memes of racism and bigotry were what defined the election for a regressive Left blissfully unaware of how transparent it’s own bigotry, arrogance & hate regarding any form of dissent is percieved. A non-starter in US politics will be the uncritical adherence to Left or Right by voters in 2018 and none too soon.


    • “Obama had a hell of a time dealing with the mess that he inherited from the Bush Administration and given the plate he was handed managed to make a little progress in undoing the damage. It’s a very sticky situation, making any improvements whatsoever was a plus.”

      So Obama inherited Libya and Syria from Bush?!?!?!?!?!

      I suppose you also think that Bush is busy controlling the drone killings behind Obama’s back?

      The ones Obama joked about using on any young men that tried to date his daughters.

      Ha Ha Hilarious!

      Or should that be Hillaryous?!?!?!


    • You clearly don’t understand the geopolitical situation that existed prior to the election of Bush 43. Are you blissfully unaware of the conflict that took place while Bush 41 was in office? Of all the military actions by Clinton against Iraq? Iraq under Hussein was a continuing problem, a festering cauldron. And it is Iran who is largely responsible for many of the atrocities that took place in both Afghanistan and Iraq – we’ve technically been at war with them for some time and Obama gave away the farm despite this.


  5. Interesting read. I would like to point out, that the germans I know of (which includes nearly everyone as I live in Germany) are not comparing Trump to Hitler. But they (and this includes me) see similarities in the development leading to his come to power to what is happening right now.
    In addition to that is that our (people in my vicinity) sense of what you can say and what not (because of Germanies history) is rather different of what Mr, Trump said.
    My opinion is, that he would have been removed from the party way before the republican primary because of his statements regarding the Mexican immigrants.
    Most of the points you address are valid concerns and I could understand to bring them up, but NOT with the statements he used.
    And when he issues an executive order and a judge oposes it and gets slammed for it because he felt/thaught/whatever it was unlawful then I see the dangers lurking in the shadows.
    Time will tell if the people who are fearful of America becoming fascist-like have been right or wrong. The warning tones in germany pre-Hitler got their share of “he will tone down when he is in office”-Arguments, too.
    I whish you luck and hope I am wrong.

    Liked by 5 people

    • those that i know who equate trump to hitler are also not comparing them but, as you said, “see similarities in the development leading to his come to power to what is happening right now.” and the effect it is having on the rest of the world. we can also hope we are wrong, but it is better to be on detail than to forget it all together and think it is non-sense.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Puzzling how you think hyperinflation, and a country torn down by war resembles modern America. I currently don’t have to spend my life savings for bread. Hitler ran for president and lost. From the history I have learned, the Nazi party won a majority of parliament, then made him chancellor. He then abolished parliament and made himself supreme chancellor. I know it may seem like there are similarities, but only out of context. The way you see the administration act is probably shocking because you don’t remember other presidents that have put temporary bans on immigration, Obama and Carter did it as well. What your seeing is a correction that has been coming for decades. It has happened many times in US history and it will surely happen again, without becoming a dictatorship.


      • “… temporary bans on immigration, Obama and Carter did it as well.>

        I’m sorry, but I don’t seem to recall either of these, or any other President in our nations history, for that matter, installing a religious test as part of their immigration plan such as the Trump plan did. As a matter of fact previous SCOTUS case decisions, as well as the Constitution, forbid such a test.

        Try a little harder next time.


        • Perhaps you should try a little harder…

          There is no religious test here. If you want to be stubborn about that, that’s on you for failing to see that there are terrorists emanating from every country in the Middle East, that Obama made this list of 7 countries he judged as the most dangerous (rightly or wrongly) and that President Trump followed that lead. If you are a Obamaphile, you must judge him in the same erroneous fashion you are judging President Trump.

          We are talking terrorists here, and the danger ISIS poses to the US. Are we to ignore them for fear that we may be called by you as being anti-muslim? The fact is, all evidence points to you being wrong, not President Trump, since there are 48 muslim countries not mentioned in the pause. Where, on the other hand, is your proof of discrimination?


          • “(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.”

            That is the actual text from the order. And it is in fact a religious text. That is, unless you are assuming Trump was so concerned about all those B’ahai folks running around these 7 nations. Or maybe he was worried about all the Hindi?

            I’m thinking not when we consider that the day before he announced the travel ban he said in an interview that he would give preferential treatment and consideration for Christians (I’ll include a link below). And the day before that he said in another interview relative to this ban, “Oh, the Christians are gonna love it!”

            Liked by 1 person

            • But that is a test for POSITIVE discrimination IN FAVOUR of persecuted religions!

              NOT, as you implied, people being discriminated AGAINST BECAUSE of their religion!!!


            • Mr. B J Mann, it is in fact discrimination based on religion. It basically says that if you are in one of these countries and you are of a minority religion (all 7 countries are predominantly Muslim) you can come to the US. If you are of the majority religion, or, basically Muslim, you cannot. This is in fact a religious test.

              I understand people all have their own beliefs, values, mores and political leanings but at least be honest about what this order does.


            • Study up on the issue, son. You cannot establish a religious test for entry into the country either. When you argue a point you obviously know nothing about you only serve to make yourself look like a fool.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Sorry, but case law isn’t the Constitution and I’ve pointed out correctly that the Constitution doesn’t say that immigration cannot be regulated by forbidding certain religions. In fact, I’m sure the founding fathers would have been in favor of keeping Muslims out of the country since they talked about how false it was.


            • >> Dorian Mattar
              >> February 9, 2017 at 4:23 pm
              >> “How do you POSITIVELY discriminate against anything? You either recognize a difference between two things, or you NEGATIVELY and UNJUSTLY attack the other.”

              Beats me.

              Ask a member of the positive discrimination lobby, the positive discrimination industry…….

              As for the constitutionality and/ or legality let’s see what the (politicised) judiciary decide.


            • >> Matthew Cooper
              >>February 9, 2017 at 4:41 pm
              >> “Mr. B J Mann, it is in fact discrimination based on religion. It basically says that if you are in one of these countries and you are of a minority religion (all 7 countries are predominantly Muslim) you can come to the US. If you are of the majority religion, or, basically Muslim, you cannot. This is in fact a religious test.”

              And what if the order said that persecuted sexual minorities should be allowed in?!

              “Mr. M Cooper, it is in fact discrimination based on sexual orientation. It basically says that if you are in one of these countries that persecute homosexuals and you are of a minority sexual orientation (all 7 countries are predominantly Muslim) you can come to the US. If you are of the majority sexual persuasion, or, basically straight/ hetero, cis-gendered, you cannot. This is in fact a sexual orientation test.”

              And so illegal?!

              And as for:

              “I understand people all have their own beliefs, values, mores and political leanings but at least be honest about what this order does.”

              Does that mean you’re a Homophobe?!


            • Because:

              a) It’s not a “BAN”.

              b) The purpose isn’t to prevent the destruction of the Twin Towers (in case you missed it: it’s too late!)

              c) The US in general, and Obama in particular have been (or should have been) taking action against countries that have a history of terror for (much) more than a decade and a half (but you seem to be totally unaware of what this is all about, it’s to do with things like introducing biometric electronic passports, protocols for checking past history of passport holders, etc, which, obviously is difficult with countries that don’t have diplomatic relations with the US, or don’t even have a a diplomatic organisation, like, ermm, the Caliphate!).

              d) The purpose is to deal (more effectively) with potential FUTURE threats (that the Obama Administration had identified, but not done much about, or even acted counter productively with respect to them!).


            • What do you mean it’s not a ban? How many times do we have to play videos where the EXPLICITLY CALLED IT A BAN?

              The people that caused 911 came from countries that are NOT on the list, IN CASE YOU MISSED THAT.

              NOT if the countries don’t have a history of terror, and NONE of these do. This has been mentioned OVER and OVER again.

              FEAR mongering with no evidence to back up the fear. It’s therefore RELIGIOUS in nature.

              More people get killed by children misusing guns then by terrorists.

              Your arguments are null and void.


            • Try again:
              Try again:

              Your comment is awaiting moderation.

              >> Dorian Mattar
              >> February 9, 2017 at 4:15 pm
              >> “What do you mean it’s not a ban? How many times do we have to play videos where the EXPLICITLY CALLED IT A BAN?”

              Here’s the EO [link to actual Executive Order REDACTED]

              Show me where it says ban?!

              >> “The people that caused 911 came from countries that are NOT on the list, IN CASE YOU MISSED THAT.”

              That in response to:

              b) The purpose isn’t to prevent the destruction of the Twin Towers (in case you missed it: it’s too late!)?!?!?!

              >> “NOT if the countries don’t have a history of terror, and NONE of these do. This has been mentioned OVER and OVER again.”

              And that’s in response to the same point?!?!?!

              It’s about FUTURE terrorism and :

              c) The US in general, and Obama in particular have been (or should have been) taking action against countries that have a history of terror for (much) more than a decade and a half (but you seem to be totally unaware of what this is all about, it’s to do with things like introducing biometric electronic passports, protocols for checking past history of passport holders, etc, which, obviously is difficult with countries that don’t have diplomatic relations with the US, or don’t even have a a diplomatic organisation, like, ermm, the Caliphate!).?!?!?!

              These countries:

              a) Were selected by OBAMA’S Administration.

              b) At best don’t have efficient modern documentation control/citizen records, at worst are war zones, failed states, part of the Caliphate.

              c) Are areas where the terrorists that are threatening Europe currently have been going in and out of for training and experience, and pretending to flee from as refugees.

              Which bits of that are you STILL struggling with?!

              >> “FEAR mongering with no evidence to back up the fear. It’s therefore RELIGIOUS in nature.”

              So if I tell someone a dog is dangerous with no evidence to back up the fear I’ve just created the first Muslim dog on record?!

              MOST Muslim countries aren’t covered by the so-called “ban”.

              The “liberals”, including YOU, are even complaining that the Muslim countries responsible for previous atrocities are not even on the (OBAMA’S) “list”.

              And not all Muslims from the countries on the (Obama’s) list are supposedly “banned”.

              >> “More people get killed by children misusing guns then by terrorists.”

              Yeah, if you conveniently ignore, ooooh, what was that terrorist thing again, it’ll come to me, just give me a sec, oh, I remember, 9/11!

              And a few other recent ones.

              Oh, and have you ever tried to pull the trigger on a proper firearm? And you think that toddlers can pick up a heavy weapon, point it at a critical area of a person, and then pull the trigger, while keeping it on target?!?! While it might occasionally happen, it’s more likely a nutter with an illegal firearm trying to cover up a murder!

              YOUR arguments are null and void!


              Apparently Kuwait (yaknow, that Muslim Arab country) has banned travel from 5 of the 7 countries on OBAMA’S List!


          • thebardonthehill, Sorry to inform you but case law as decided by the SCOTUS is in fact the law of the land, as the SCOTUS decides if laws/cases before them comport with the Constitution. Keep trying, maybe someday you’ll get an idea of what you’re talking about.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Try Again:

          Mr B J Mann
          February 9, 2017 at 6:57 pm

          Your comment is awaiting moderation.

          Here’s something to jog your memory, or do you usually watch Fox?!

          [Link to YouTube ABC Video “ABC NEWS FULLY SUPPORTED Obama’s Ban on Jihad Nations” REDACTED”


    • Olaf Schmidt
      February 7, 2017 at 6:32 pm
      >> “My opinion is, that he would have been removed from the party way before the republican primary because of his statements regarding the Mexican immigrants.”

      First, did you mean ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants?

      Did you know that anyone so much as stepping over the border the other way without all the correct paperwork is deemed to be not just a run of the mill criminal, but a fully fledged felon, and immediately arrested, probably with violence, and booted out of Mexico after the earliest opportunity (ie after the rest of the dregs of humanity in the cells have had their way with you?!).

      And that even if you crossed the border the other way WITH all the correct paperwork, if you took part in any protest marches or other political activity, never mind illegal voting, as Obama encouraged illegal immigrants to do, you would also be arrested, etc…… and booted out!

      And which statements?

      Do you mean where he spoke out in support of Mexican ILLEGAL immigrant support groups and feminists who were complaining of ILLEGAL immigrants (=criminal already) suffering an epidemic of mass and gang r a pes (=more crimes) by fellow ILLEGAL (=criminal) immigrants and people smugglers (=criminal) and traffickers (=criminals)?!

      WHich bits of that did you think he should have been removed from the party for?!


      • Cite your source that crossing the border “without permission” (Immigration’s terminology) is a felony. My sources say that it is far from the severity of a murder.

        Gee, hasn’t this Hitler post really wandered off into the weeds? Does Regie moderate it at all?


        • Try Again:

          Mr B J Mann
          February 9, 2017 at 5:39 pm

          Your comment is awaiting moderation.

          Cite YOUR source for me saying it was near “the severity of murder”.

          A felony is anything above a misdemeanour.

          Here’s an (old) article on Mexico’s immigration laws with extracts:

          [Link to Center For Security Policy 2006/04/03 paper “The Mexican Solution-2 REDACTED]

          – Pursuant to Article 33, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics.
          – Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones . Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”
          – Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.”
          – The Mexican constitution states that foreigners – not just illegal immigrants – may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33

          Then there’s (with extracts):

          [Link to Washington Times 2010/may/3 “Mexico’s Illegals Laws Tougher Than Arizonas REDACTED]

          – Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.
          – The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents……..

          However, the law has been “liberalised” since that article, so that, for example, undocumented immigration is “decriminalized”, punishable with “only” a fine of up to 100 days’ worth of minimum wage (over 3 months of 7 day working or half a year with weekends and holidays off, so that’s alright then!).

          I’ll leave you to cite your sources for the full extent of the “liberalisation” and “decriminalisation”!


        • Ohhhhhhhhh, so he said EVERY one was a criminal but some were GOOD criminals!?!?!

          And maybe I haven’t seen him bayonetting, basting in mother’s blood, barbequing and brunching on ickle new born baybees, like you obviously have.

          Whatever it is, you really should come off it mate!


          • The one that has to come off the drugs is you. Show me where he targeted certain latinos ONLY. He statements were GENERAL with NO lines anywhere except his remark that “MAYBE some are good”.


            • No.

              I’ve got a better idea.

              You the one making insulting accaccusations:

              Dorian Mattar
              February 9, 2017 at 4:23 pm
              How do you POSITIVELY discriminate against anything? You either recognize a difference between two things, or you NEGATIVELY and UNJUSTLY attack the other.

              Dorian Mattar
              February 9, 2017 at 4:15 pm
              …..FEAR mongering with no evidence to back up the fear. It’s therefore RELIGIOUS in nature.
              More people get killed by children misusing guns [3,000+1 in an afternoon?!] then by terrorists.
              Your arguments are null and void.

              Dorian Mattar
              February 9, 2017 at 4:10 pm
              He did not say illegals, he generalized and called every single hispanic a criminal and SOME MIGHT be good people.
              Why do you make excuses for this monster? That’s the question.

              Dorian Mattar
              February 10, 2017 at 4:14 pm
              The one that has to come off the drugs is you. Show me where he targeted certain latinos ONLY. He statements were GENERAL with NO lines anywhere except his remark that “MAYBE some are good”.

              So why don’t you provide proof for, oh, say HALF of YOUR accusations?!


    • There is no valid comparison between pre-Hitler Germany and pre-Trump America… unless you’re going to point to the lawless 8 years of the Obama administration – which is EXACTLY why Trump won. And he won thanks to people who reliably voted Democrat in recent elections deciding that wasn’t a good idea this time.


  6. Look, you just don’t get it. Hitler means white. Nazi means white. Fascist means white. Racist means white. All these things mean white people who don’t loathe themselves and their community. What the actual Hitler did is irrelevant. The crime of those they accuse is breathing while white and not openly, jubilantly applauding the destruction of whites. Even Republicans and Cuckservatives who have spent the last several decades collaborating in that destruction don’t escape the charge, they go into the gas chamber last, that’s all.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “But if you study enough about it, you realize the guy vetting and banning refugees is probably not Hitler …the guy CREATING refugees probably is”

    And who, pray tell, created the refugee crisis? Why, it was the United States military, of all people, acting at the behest of its government and with the support of its citizenry (for the most part). Invading foreign lands, overthrowing foreign governments, assassinating foreign leaders- that’s the history of American foreign policy. We’re the Big Bad Wolf and we’re engaged in the process of blowing our own house down, never mind the houses of the rest of the planet.


  8. The list does go on, but separate from the inaptness of the comparisons is the crime that such comparisons commits upon historical memory. Painting that toothbrush mustache on anyone other than Hitler cheapens the suffering of Hitler’s victims and demeans the heroism and sacrifice of those who resisted and defeated the, you know, ACTUAL NAZIS. It numbs a society already ever more poorly-read and historically illiterate, numbs it to the actual horrors that actually occurred by trivializing it into bumper stickers and poorly-drawn placards and cheap protest slogans.

    Now we’re to the point, not so long ago with soldiers who survived the Great War, where those who survived the Second World War whether as an Arbeitslager Jew or a Screaming Eagle over Normandy or a Leningrad starveling, are dwindling in number, where the actual experience of those awful years will too soon pass forever from living memory…THEN where will we be?

    And apropos current events, the ahistorical nitwits (you know who you are) perpetrating the obscene equivalence can apply “Nazi” as broadly and inaptly as they do “racist” to justify actual, physical violence against those whom they declare beyond the pale (hmm, familiar). It’s already out there, already going on, and you know it. As someone I can’t remember once put it, if one wants to know what on their minds, look at what they’re accusing others of doing.

    What are you going to do when the “Nazis” start punching back?


  9. “He didn’t start out just killing Jews. He started out euthanizing people with special needs …for the betterment of the care-givers’ lives. (You can decide which side of the aisle favors the extermination of “inconvenient” people).”

    So, in an article about false equivalence, Regie resorts to…. false equivalence.

    Yes the T4 programme predated Operation Reinhard, but Jews had been being murdered in a less systematised fashion for years in Nazi Germany. The most obvious example being Kristallnacht (1938) during which 91 Jews were murdered. But of course there were also concentration camps in operation since 1933 which were of course all sites of murder long before the first gas chambers were installed in the extermination camps. It is also worth noting, given the political commentary, that among the very first victims of the Nazis were Communists, Socialists and other leftwing political enemies of the regime.

    But more importantly than any of this is that while the Nazis did indeed exterminate those who were not Jewish, to argue that the core enemies of the Third Reich were anybody other than Jews is to miss the point. For the Nazis, the Second World War and the “war against the Jews” were the same thing, the annihilation of European Jewry was a different front of the same conflict.

    “5. He disarmed the population”

    No, he did not. In actual fact, Germany had been disarmed by the Allied Powers in the wake of the First World War. These strict laws were relaxed in 1928 and when the Nazis came into power even these restrictions were rarely enforced. Meanwhile, many households still had the firearms they had possessed since the First World War, they further deregulated the purchase of rifles and shotguns and allowed the purchase of pistols with a hunting permit. The idea that the Nazis ‘disarmed’ the population is a complete and utter fiction. What the Nazis did was attempt to disarm their enemies.

    “then nationalized healthcare”

    No, he did not. The German insurance based system, which they still utilise, was first introduced by Bismarck in the 1880s.

    For an individual with such a large following and, therefore public responsibility, you should be ashamed for publishing this Regie.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. This Hitler Nonsense you write about is very debatable. With Donald T, we will just have to see how it plays out to get the full purpose of his presidentcy. No doubt he is a authoritarian, vengeful and vindictve person, plus. Lets’s see.


  11. Hi all.

    First off: I agree with the premise, 100%. Calling every leader we don’t like a Nazi/Hitler is tedious, overplayed, and counterproductive. I consider myself a very left-of-center person, with many left-of-center friends, some of whom have fallen to the temptation of comparing Trump to Hitler. In the spirit of saying “hey, not everyone to the right of you is a racist sexist nutter, here’s an example of someone making some legit points”, I posted this to give a little perspective.
    Some of my friends made a couple of observations I thought worth sharing:

    1. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that during the post-2009 Tea Party eruption, this country bore witness to the exact same ridiculousness, with some added race-based flair from more than a few, as well. My guess is that there many on the right who, after having read the Hitler Nonsense essay, have said to themselves : “YES! Exactly! These liberals need to calm down with the Hitler crap!” My hope is that a sizable portion of these same folks are fully mindful that this cuts both ways, and can acknowledge that yes, a large contingent of people on “their side” Hitlered Obama in just the same way.
    2. Buried in a few of the bullet points were some undeniable anti-left barbs, little back-door Godwins (eg. “You can decide which side of the aisle favors the extermination of “inconvenient” people”, and “2 out of 3 of those are Bernie Sanders moves”). If the message is to say “knock off the Hitler comparisons”, it loses a lot of its ability to reach beyond your echo chamber if you turn around and insinuate that “maybe it’s those lefties who share more qualities with Hitler.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • >> “My hope is that a sizable portion of these same folks are fully mindful that this cuts both ways, and can acknowledge that yes, a large contingent of people on “their side” Hitlered Obama in just the same way.”

      So for how many weeks, actually months now, after Obama won the Presidential election were Republicans rioting in the streets, assaulting people they ASSUMED had voted for Obama, committing arson…….

      Not to mention shutting down debate (even silencing Jewish gay men with black partners?!?!)?!

      Oh, and did anyone really call Obama Hitler (OK, maybe you heard Hillary in private)?!?!

      >> ““You can decide which side of the aisle favors the extermination of “inconvenient” people”………. “maybe it’s those lefties who share more qualities with Hitler.”

      You need to do a little research into the history of the extermination of “inconvenient” people” (and that’s not just unborn babies) in the UK and US in the early part of the last Century, including the use of gas chambers, which is where Godwin’s mate probably got all his ideas from!


  12. […] These days, the mainstream media can literally dictate American sentiment. From our education system, to what we watch on TV, everything is geared towards socialism. If you read Alt Right media, you are labeled a “white supremacists”, and because Donald Trump is so polarizing he gets labeled as “Hitleresque” by the MSM, and people who have no idea who Hitler really was. […]


    • fun fact. Hitler discredited and silenced the media before he started taking swings at people of a certain religion.
      We live in an age, apparently when the white house makes up (twice now) non existent terror attacks to scare the population agains a type of people.
      What seems right to you?


      • Did they?

        Or did his opponents and the media go crazy over a mistake and use it to not only distract from the points being made but to start taking swings at people of a certain skin colour (orange) and their supporters with attacks about non existent characteristics, personal traits and even supposed statements totally disproved by easily accessible tapes and documents in a “liberal” campaign of terror to scare the population against that type of people.


        • You could claim it was an honest mistake, I suppose, had Conway (assuming you are referring to her and the non-existent “Bowling Green Massacre”) only made that comment once. In fact, however, she made it three times in three different interviews. Three times making the same false claim is not an honest mistake, or an accident. Three times saying something completely false is a lie. You know it and so did she.

          And this isn’t about ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. It’s about the truth. Get past this ignorant and obsessive liberal versus conservative bullshit and look for the truth. Leave the politics out of it and simply ask “Did she or did she not make the same false statement more than once and try to clean it up only when she was caught?”

          Please tell me you are adult enough to actually look for facts instead of spewing political horseshit to try to prove a point that simply doesn’t exist. The facts are simple: She lied. Not once. Not twice. Three times.


          • Like many people I often call my children by the wrong name. Does it mean I don’t know who they are?! Does it make me a liar?!?!

            Some people call their wife by the wrong name. They might be a liar. But it doesn’t mean they are lying about their wife’s name, just that they are thinking of something else!

            It’s quite common for people to use the wrong word, especially if they think faster than they can speak, can think of more than one thing at a time, and often do.

            Perhaps that’s not a problem you suffer from?!

            The simple, obvious, explanation is that she is concerned about, dwelling on, terrorist massacres while talking about something terrorist massacre related, and related to terrorists planning massacres, and, surprise, surprise, massacre automatically jumps into her head when she says terrorist.

            It’s like “liberals” always say massacre when they are talking about a school shooting, even though there wasn’t a massacre (and even though the real school massacres didn’t involve guns!).

            But the real question is why are the “liberals” and the media, making such a big thing about that one word instead of addressing the issues she was talking about.

            Perhaps they are trying to distract and deflect from the issues she wants to discuss:

            THAT’S the REAL LIE here!


            • 1. I’ve never once called my children by the wrong name.
              2. I’ve never once called my wife by the wrong name (she’d kill me).
              3. The difference is that you being forgetful at home is one thing. Kellyanne Conjob making these false statements in front of a national, and indeed world wide, television audience is a whole different thing. You don’t accidentally say, on three different times, to three different people, in three different interviews “…the Bowling Green massacre” and not “the Bowling Green terrorists”. Once I can understand. Thrice, no way. She was trying to mislead the entire country and she got caught. Why is that such a difficult conclusion for you to come to? Please tell me you’re really not so naïve as to believe what you just said.
              4. Stop with these silly ‘liberal’ stereotypes. Deaths of school children by any means is not a liberal or an conservative issue, and stop this foolishness.
              5. “…(and even though the real school massacres didn’t involve guns!)” Have you read a paper at any point in the last 20+ years? Hmm? Columbine. Sandy Hook. Santa Monica College. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. University of Maryland. Morehouse College. Guess what they all have in common? Killings. Involving guns. As for the term “massacre”, I have only two questions, since you seem to want to argue simple, basic syntax: A. How many dead bodies do you suppose comprise a “massacre”? Three? Nine? Thirty? And wouldn’t you agree that 20 dead grade school children (such as what occurred at Sandy Hook) would constitute a ‘massacre? Or maybe the 12 dead at Columbine? Do they meet your criterion for “massacre”? And just so you know, those combined 32 children were shot to death. By people with guns. So you’re argument that the “real” school massacres didn’t involve guns is downright ignorant. Ignorant of fact. Ignorant of reality. Ignorant of common sense. For myself, I personally think one dead 7-year old, killed in his school, is a massacre.

              It’s really hard to take you even a little bit seriously when you aren’t even remotely in touch with, nor have any basic command of, the facts.

              Lastly, to your question about why people are making such a big deal and not talking about the ‘real issue’ Conjob was referring to…I can only say “Huh? What real issue? The factual issue? She couldn’t possibly have been talking about any factual issues because she doesn’t believe in facts. Alternative facts, maybe, but certainly not real ones. Or were you meaning the lie she told three different times about the “Great Bowling Green Massacre”? See, when you flat out lie to the entire country you A. deserve to be called out on it, and B. you deserve to lose any and all credibility. There is no ‘real’ issue for her to discuss when she can’t even bother to tell the truth every now and again. And when your President lies to your face via his chosen mouthpiece, that should flat out piss you off. It should piss off every American. The President and/or his spokesperson lying and making up stories to try to gin up some non-existent fear should piss off every person in this country.

              This is not a ‘liberal issue’, nor a ‘conservative issue’. It is an honesty issue. An Integrity issue. A common decency issue.

              Your President should know better. And America deserves better.

              Liked by 1 person

            • He’s not my President.

              And you should learn to read with understanding while doing other things like remembering names or stick to doing one thing at a time.

              I didn’t say accidentally, I said she could have mistakenly been triggered by the same circumstances to use the wrong word.

              But answer me this:

              If she had said terrorist instead of massacre (or terrorist massacre): what difference would it have made?

              Apart from the press and the left (is there a difference) having nothing to get hysterical about to distract from the points she was making?

              And you think I’m naive?!

              As for the point you see most interested in:

              The biggest non kindergarten school massacre in the US was over 50 children, all killed without guns.

              If you count kindergartens, kids were killed at Oklahoma where around 200 died in total.

              On 9/11 the kindergarten was safely evacuated before its building collapsed but around 3,000 others died.

              And you now seem to be getting 2 or 3 people shot separately by the same killer routinely labelled a massacre by the liberal media?!

              To put all the US school (and church) “gun massacres” thing in perspective: in tiny Rwanda, a country just about falling off the bottom of the gun ownership league table, they managed to kill 800,000 people in a mere 100 days, a kill rate TRIPLE that of the Holocaust, using nothing more lethal than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements plus the odd sharpened stick or heavy rock.

              And I seem to recall the odd church being attacked and there must have been at least one school.

              And in the Far East, also a low gun ownership area, from where we occasionally hear of a school knife massacre on a slow news day, knife rampages, involving not just single figures, but deaths in the tens or twenties, are so common they have a special word for it, that we borrow for the phrase running “amok”.

              Of course, if you really want devastation you use a truck, train, or plane.

              Or poison in a drinking water tank.

              Or fire.

              In fact you can easily kill a hundred people by securing fire exit doors and just hitting the fire alarm!

              But back to liberals and guns, as you read so many papers, were your massacres in gun free zones or not?

              We’re they mainly after more stringent gun controls were introduced or not?

              We’re they mainly in states or cities with their own more stringent gun controls or not?

              Were they mainly (exclusively?) by (liberal condoned/ supported) druggies or not?

              And how many were from Democrat families, Democrat supporters, and even registered Democrats?!

              Did someone mention “downright ignorant. Ignorant of fact. Ignorant of reality. Ignorant of common sense. For myself, I personally think one dead 7-year old, killed in his school, is a massacre”?

              But do you still think the killing of a “Won’t Someone Think Of The CHILDREN/ If It Saves JUST ONE Life?!” SINGLE Seven Year Old is a MASSACRE if it is carried out by a Democrat dopehead?!

              And you claim lit’s really hard to take ME even a little bit seriously when *I* aren’t even remotely in touch with, nor have any basic command of, the facts”?!?!


            • By the way, as far as I can find the three supposed instances of her using “Massacre” are:

              By Kristen Mascia Jan 30, 2017
              “The idea that we have to wait for the next terrorist attack to actually happen and say, ‘How did that happen? Were we looking another way?’ It’s just not going to happen here,” she said. “President Trump inherited a hot mess.”
              People should “realize that the order is temporary and narrowly prescribed. It doesn’t paint with a broad brush. It includes seven countries that President Obama identified — please don’t cut that from your story — seven countries that President Obama and his administration identified,” she added, citing an adjustment to the national Visa Waiver Program that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2015.

              No mention of Bowling Green there or anywhere else in the article, but presumably she mentioned it in the actual interview and it wasn’t used in the article.

              Do you have the actual quote from the full interview?

              Kellyanne Conway Obama Started the Muslim Ban
              1/29/2017 10:18 AM PST

              The (entire) article says:

              “Kellyanne Conway says the Muslim ban is actually Barack Obama’s brainchild, and President Trump is just following his lead.”
              “We got Kellyanne in D.C. Sunday, where she was quick to point out Obama temporarily put the brakes on the Iraqi refugee program by adding lots of red tape to the process. To her point, Obama did ID 4 countries as areas of concern for terrorism, but Trump plopped on 3 new ones with his Exec order.”

              (Actually, the other three were “plopped on” by the Obama Administration in regular reviews, the EO only refers to existing laws and regulations).

              However, in the embedded video she does refer to the Bowling Green “ATTACK” on “OUR SOLDIERS”

              So maybe people just assumed if JUST ONE soldier died it must have been the “Bowling Green MASSACRE”

              MSNBC Hardball Interview
              “I bet it’s brand-new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized, and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre,”

              So, there ya go, ONE PUBLISHED use of “massacre”, maybe misspoken for terrorist, maybe for planned massacre, maybe for forgetfulness.

              One of “attack” that the media and you are misspeaking as “massacre”.

              And one claimed use of “massacre” I’ve seen no proof of.

              However, it would be reinforcing her point if Obama had brought in his “BAN!” if there WASN’T a massacre, if there was “only” plans to send money and equipment to the Middle East, so why would she deliberately lie and say massacre?

              Obama would have had much more justification bringing in a travel “BAN!” in response to a actual massacre on US soil than to a mere plot to kill soldiers OVERSEAS!

              And yet everybody is talking about the “massacre” and NOT about her defence of the EO or her comments about Obama.

              No media bias there then?!

              Incidentally, from a later Cosmopolitan article:
              By Kristen Mascia Feb 06, 2017
              Conway was referencing the case of two Iraqi men, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi and Waad Ramadan Alwan, who entered the U.S. under the guise of refugees in 2009 and were arrested in 2011 in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on charges related to terrorism. But when reached out to the FBI to verify details of Conway’s account, a spokesman wrote in an email that “a couple of your facts seem incorrect” and provided a link to a Justice Department press release, which, he said, “outlines all the public information and timeline.”
              According to the release, the men “admitted using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against U.S. soldiers in Iraq” and “attempted to send weapons and money to al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) for the purpose of killing U.S. soldiers.” Both pleaded guilty to federal terrorism charges. But the DOJ release makes no mention of the men returning to the Middle East for training.

              So that would be Bowling Green Terrorists who themselves MASSACRED US soldiers (and maybe INNOCENT bystander LITTLE CHILDREN). and who plotted to and attempted to assist in the MASSACRE of even more US Soldiers (and maybe INNOCENT bystander LITTLE CHILDREN)”.

              So why are you, and everyone else, condemning her for using the word massacre, when JUST ONE SINGLE death counts?!

              Instead of discussing the points at issue which were what the EO ACTUALLY did in general, and what OBAMA did in particular?!?!


  13. Man, you know, you bitch about politicizing Hitler and then you bring in Bernie Sanders?!? Fuck you!
    What kind of National Health Care did did Hitler give the Jews, The Mengele Clinic? Bernie’s plan is good for all, you asswipe.
    What did nazis teach in their “free” education?…wow!


    • I think Bernie Sanders health plan for the unborn is just about like all the Murdercrats – kill ’em if you want to. They’ve made the unborn subhuman so they could dispose of them just like Hitler made the Jews and other subhuman so they could dispose of them. I look back and marvel at what I’ve just said. I made an argument without a single four letter potty word. 🙂


        • Sorry, but a fetus is still a human being and science says so, saying that a unique human being comes into existence at conception. You’re wrong. It was the Germans who made the Jews subhuman by using words just as you’ve been taught to make the fetus subhuman as well. So, you have the Nazi mind. You’re the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and you’re the one who has been brainwashed and doesn’t have a clue.


          • Science says no such thing, you are TWISTING things out of context to meet your emotional pleading.

            Where does the German people say that fetuses don’t FEEL?

            Again, twisting everything to fit your needs.


            It’s a human FETUS. It’s not a baby. A baby can FEEL, and has at least some sense of it’s surroundings.

            Science makes it perfectly clear that the fetus CANOT feel anything prior to the connection between the brain and the nervous system.

            A fetus therefore IS just a collection of muscles, whether you like it or not.

            And since I am certain that you are religious here is something for you.

            Your own god makes it clear, that you can have an abortion simply because you had sex with someone other than your husband. Let alone rape or incest.

            NUMBERS 5:20 22

            I’ve studied biology and paleontology and obviously more about your own religion than you. What schooling do you have? Kindergarten?


            • It’s bad enough when people don’t know what they are arguing about but even worse when they make declarations as if they do. And science DOES say that a new human being begins at conception. Dr. Jerome LeJeune, who was a pediatrician and professor of genetics in Paris, testified before a Congressional subcommittee, saying, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being” and that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence…. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.” What you’ve been taught by murderers is a deceptive thing they do. They use fetus instead of baby as if that means the unborn is not a human being. Toddler, teen, senior, fetus, etc. are all simply stages in an individual’s life. Science says so. Yours is a philosophy that was warped and shaped by murderers and you don’t even know what you’re talking about.


            • Bullshit, the testimony from ONE individual, no matter his credentials is NOT the scientific consensus. A fetus does NOT qualify as a full human being.

              YES, they ARE stages on a human’s life, except that so is a SPERM. WITHOUT the sperm OR the EGG, NO HUMAN.

              To say that a fetus is a human is insanity.

              YOU are the one that has been brain washed, A FETUS DOES NOT FEEL.


              A fetus that you won’t give a shit about after it’s born. How many babies have you adopted today?



            • Sorry, but more than one individual has spoken on this. You’ve been duped and you’re wrong and you can’t admit it. No, neither a sperm nor an egg is a human being. At conception, both are gone and a zygote is the result. And THAT is the new human. A person in a coma doesn’t feel so consciousness is not what makes a person human. You’re wrong again. Professor Hymie Gordon of the Mayo Clinic testified before a Senate committed in 1981, saying, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception” and “unequivocally, that the
              question when life begins is no longer a question for theological or philo-sophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact.” “…it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”


            • The zygote is not even a damn mm in size! Is that a human? ONLY if you are demented!

              Comparing someone in a coma to a damn zygote? LMAO YOU are insane.

              Get the hell away from women, you are danger to humanity.

              NO SHIT that life begins you idiot. But the fetus is NOT human! Many things ARE alive! It doesn’t mean they are human!

              The only established fact here, is that you are twisting everything into your little world of insanity.

              Stay away from women!


            • Oh, so now it’s size that makes a human! Well, the newborn isn’t nearly the size of Shaquille O’Neal so it must not be human. I made a valid comparison between two that don’t have consciousness. Just because your arguments are being destroyed are being destroyed you make personal attacks, etc. That shows the weakness of your position. And your four letter words show the weakness of your vocabulary. A fetus isn’t human? LOL! Man, you are so wrong. Yet another quote: W.J. Larsen, in a book about human embryology, wrote, “In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.”


            • It’s not “loosing”. It’s “losing” and you are. What was that personal comment about my education? Sheesh, fellow. You’re wrong; you can’t argue; you can’t reason; you can’t talk without four letter words; you make ad hominem remarks instead of sticking to issues. You’ve lost at every turn. Even abortionists realize that abortion is murder: In an article for the California Medical Association, Dr. Malcom Watts wrote, “…it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous until death.” He was writing a pro abortion piece.


            • No, you’re wrong and I’ve quoted more than one doctor. I’ve even quoted from your side. Here’s yet another: Carol Everett was the administrator of four abortion clinics and owned two. She said, “Every woman has these same two questions: First, ‘Is it a baby?’ ‘No’ the counselor assures her. ‘It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)’ Even though these counselors see six week babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth?” See what I mean about lying and deceiving? They lie to the women; they lie to the public. They’ve deceived you.


            • Wow! Now you avoid my arguments and all the quotes against you and bring up something I’ve never said nor even thought of. An unprejudiced viewer would just shake his head at how badly you’ve been beaten. The question is again, will you stay on the side of murder and continue to be immoral? Or will you, after the heat of battle is gone, start to think instead of just emote?


            • Find me a document that starts that the scientific CONSENSUS is that life begins at birth.

              YOU will NOT find it.

              Cherry picking your BULLSHIT is WORTHLESS.

              Stay the FUCK away from women!


            • I’ve already produced recognized experts in the field who stood before the world and said that there is a consensus. Think about the risk to their reputations if that wasn’t so. Here’s yet another one: Before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981, Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth of Harvard Medical School testified that a human life begins at conception and supported her testimony by references to more than twenty embryology and medical textbooks. She said, “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” The problem is that you’re wrong and you’re in denial and simply trying to find a way to escape. We humans are great at defending ourselves, even when we’re horribly wrong. It takes quite an individual to stop, think, and then admit he is wrong.


            • Holy FUCK that is NOT a consensus! There could a 100 of them, and at the same time there could be 1000 on the other side!

              Do you fucking know what a concuss is?

              NO, because you are an IDIOT!


            • Of course you didn’t address my point. And various quotes by experts in the field did say it was a consensus. They simply didn’t use that word. Hiding behind a specific phrasing is an old trick people play. “I’ll give the man a million dollars who finds a verse in the Bible that says_______.”
              And then they carefully word it so that there isn’t anything in the Bible that says it THAT way.


            • I have not being destroyed, you do NOT have a concebnsus on when life begins. But we DO have a consensus that fetuses until week 22 FEEL NOTHING.




            • Sorry, but your “consciousness” argument has already been met and defeated. And yes, there is a consensus. Even the abortionist admitted “Abortion is killing. Nobody can argue with that. When the fetus is inside the uterus it is alive and when the pregnancy terminated it is dead – that by any definition is killing.” Get those words? Nobody can argue with that. Well, I suppose the naive and the ignorant would. But when your own side admits the contention of the other, the battle is over, lost.


            • No, you’ve been lied to and deceived by the murdering and immoral abortion crowd. And you can’t take it. You can’t admit you’re wrong. You’ve been out of powder for a long time now.


            • No, I don’t believe in invisible gods. I believe in the one God who made everything. And that’s a very evident thing, too. The wind is invisible and yet you believe in that. So, again you’re using arguments that are as invalid as can be. Have you been led by the nose by others all of your life instead of thinking for yourself? 😦


            • Can you see that mother fucking god? NO YOU CAN”T Because he is not real and you are an idiot.

              The wind is not invisible, you moron!

              I’m not going to get into psychics with an ignoramus like you.


            • Another: An abortionist said, “I can now say openly that I do think I am ending a life every time I do an abortion, but I do it as someone who has certain skill which is put at the disposal of a woman who does not want her pregnancy to continue.” Your side admits my point.


            • Maybe you should smash babies against the rocks and be happy! Or maybe flood the entire world and be even happier.

              Fucking Hypocrite! Or maybe burn billions of people for eternity in fire.




            • I see. Flailing away at anything and everything instead of sticking to the issue. Well, your arguments have been destroyed. You’ve been deceived and you are ignorant about the very thing under discussion.


            • The abortionist: It’s killing. “Nobody can argue with that.” A “scientific fact which everyone really knows.” “an established scientific fact”. “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.” You’ve been routed.


            • There’s that nice fellow again. So the abortionists on your side that says it is killing are lying scum bags? Well, they’re scum bags, but they’re right. Even your side admits my point. So you’ve lost all the way around. It’s not even close.


            • Another: Bruce Patten’s textbook on embryology states, “Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)…. The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”


            • C.W. Kischer, who was a professor of anatomy and human embryology made the sweeping statement, “Every human embryologist, worldwide, states that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization (conception).… We exist as a continuum of human life, which begins at fertilization and continues until death.” Looks like yet another statement about the consensus of science. You have no hope.


            • Noooo, they’re not merely saying it’s alive. They’re saying it’s a human being. What you’re doing is looking for an escape, just any old thing. So you see the word “alive” or seize on it, and try to make a point there. The point is that you have no point.


            • No, I don’t think you’re nice at all. Look at your words. Look at what you’re supporting – the murder of the unborn. What we’ve done in this nation is ten times worse than what Hitler did (60,000,000 to 6,000,000). As far as putting my nose where it doesn’t belong – it does belong anywhere I run across one individual with power and might murdering a weaker person. And that’s what abortion is. If you’ll notice in all pro-abortion arguments, they skip merrily over what happens to the unborn and talk about (woe, woe, woe) the poor woman and her rights. Right to murder? NO! Gloria Steinem, wonderful women’s leader, had her unborn baby murdered so she could get on with her life. It’s all selfish and it’s hideous to the core.


            • “Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before “quickening”, an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 1869[4].”

              Let alone a damn zygote! YOU are INSANE.


            • I see. You’ve lost the battle concerning science, making all sorts of false claims while I was posting what science actually teaches and you’ve gone to history. Quickening is merely the time that a woman can feel movement of her unborn baby. But it was already moving before she could feel it. So, discerning movement doesn’t mean it wasn’t human before. Science says it was.


            • You don’t reason. All you do is emote. You’ve been deceived with false arguments. It’s not surprising that those with murderous hearts would lie and deceive without a qualm. The question is whether you are murderous and immoral also, or will you start to investigate and think. Here’s yet another quote: In their book on embryology, O’Rahilly and Muller wrote, “Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.”


      • Wow, not just one “liberal”, but TWO, who can’t decipher the simple phrase:

        “like Hitler made the Jews and other subhuman so they could dispose of them”

        And one of them even struggles with:

        “I look back and marvel at what I’ve just said. I made an argument without a single four letter potty word.”

        As you’re BOTH probably STILL struggling:

        HE didn’t say Jews were sub-human:

        He said HITLER did (and others) so he could dispose of them.

        In the same way as people like you make unborn babies sub-human.

        All the better to destroy them!

        Or, if you prefer, an unborn human.

        Does that make it more OK?!


  14. […] These days, the mainstream media can literally dictate American sentiment. From our education system, to what we watch on TV, everything is geared towards socialism. If you read Alt Right media, you are labeled a “white supremacists”, and because Donald Trump is so polarizing he gets labeled as “Hitleresque” by the MSM, and people who have no idea who Hitler really was. […]


  15. […] These days, the mainstream media can literally dictate American sentiment. From our education system, to what we watch on TV, everything is geared towards socialism. If you read Alt Right media, you are labeled a “white supremacists”, and because Donald Trump is so polarizing he gets labeled as “Hitleresque” by the MSM, and people who have no idea who Hitler really was. […]


  16. >> Dorian Mattar
    >> February 11, 2017 at 3:51 am
    >> “You have to be kidding me! LMAO!!! You are a nut job. Get lost.”

    Sorry if I triggered you there snowflake.

    But I appreciate the confirmation that you haven’t got a single actual argument or solitary piece of evidence.


  17. Technically, John Wilkes Boothe proclaimed “Society semper tyrannis” when he lept to the stage. It means, “thus always tyrants”.

    Later asked to clarify, he was quite as saying, “Useless, useless!”


  18. Dear Regie,

    Let me tell you about my qualifications to respond to your post.
    I come from a mixed Jewish/Russian/Latvian family. Such was the nature of the Soviet Union.

    My family came here, to the US as refugees in the early 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union, when tanks rolled through Riga and anti semitism rose again. I am in my early 30s and I saw Jewish gravs being torn up.

    Once again, even though not religious, my parents labeled as Jews (my dad is not Jewish at all, he was just married to one) were fired from their jobs. Our home, that we payed for and owned was taken away.

    Let’s go back further. My family is a mix of Russian Orthodox and Jew. On my Jewish side, other than my great grandfather, who survived because he was in the army and was good at his job and advanced to Colonel (a pretty big deal for a Jew under Stalin) were massacred in the Slutsk Affair. I remember him writing letters, searching for any survivors, but everyone was gone. He was one of 8 children. They never even made it to concentration camps , they were executed on site.

    On the other side, my Russian side, my great grandparents were sent to Siberia to die because they were farmers who owned a small bit of land and were autonomous. Some of them escaped and were hidden by family for years and we didn’t even learn about this until the 2000s.

    I also have direct family who lived through the blockade of Leningrad. They did not read about it in a book, they LIVED and died though it. Can you imagine making belt soup? A rat being your prized catch? Or cooking your miscarriage due to lack of food because you are so hungry? Was that in your dad’s book? Because that is what people did to survive.

    To all the commenters, are we, as a society that sad that we do not value books as gifts and think that is like a coo? Is it such a novelty now? I gave my mother in law a book about impressionist art this past Christmas. Does that make her an expert on Van Gogh?
    I buy books for myself. You really should check out The Strand if you are ever in NYC. I get books as gifts all the time because my friends and family know that this is what I enjoy. Does this make me a an expert? WTF is that claim?

    Does watching hours of the history channel also contribute to my credentials? Because That is a thing I do.

    But if we get back to actual study, I have also taken courses in college on both WWI and WWII. You know like actual study, by learning and reading in higher education, not by osmosis.

    I took those courses because this subject is extremely important to me. And yet I do not claim to be an expert but know what I am talking about at least somewhat.

    My family wasn’t a child actor traveling in the 50s and becoming interested. My family was murdered and a few were lucky enough to live and tell me about it. So yes, I am also interested in the subject.

    Does any of this make me an expert on the subject? No. But like you, I feel that I am knowledgeable enough to address the points you make.

    I’d like to preface this by saying that I take the term “nazi” and the name “Hitler” very seriously. As I have mentioned MOST of my family died at the orders of this regime.

    Do I think that Donald J. Trump is the next Hitler? No. I hope I am not wrong. But I do feel like we are on a path to a fascist, authoritarian government.

    Let me go over the points you make.
    Your #1) Taking over a weak nation. The reason they were weak was because they lost WWI.
    They were one of the aggressors there. Hard for a guy to show up like that? That was literally Trump’s entire platform.

    #2) Hitler’s entire career was violent. – So has Trump’s. In a different way. If you believe you can be a billionaire without breaking a few eggs, bankrupting a few companies and wronging thousands of people in our own self interest… well.. You probably need to rethink the American dream

    But here comes the juice

    #3) Entered office with his own military.
    Did you write this before he fired Sally Yates? And replaced her with an amoeba mouth piece?
    Did you write this before the white house literally said that anyone who disagrees with them will be fired?

    And then we come to Elizabeth Warren. She TALKED in a forum where you are supposed to talk. What a bitch. She was warned. But she persisted.

    #4) Let’s go the opposite and allow the severely mentally ill to obtain guns. But then also let us look up how many more people die from guns that via terrorist attack.

    But Sir, I am not here to disagree with you. I might be a libtard snowflake.
    I do not believe that Donald J. Trump is the next Hitler even though he literally matched most of your argument points in his first 3 weeks in office.

    I do not believe he is the next Hitler.

    I believe he is the next Stalin.

    In your osmosis did you learn anything about him?

    Let’s discuss.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Continuing with the theme on the road to fascism. Discredit the media and the scientific community. Both in progress.
      Again, not Hitler, but it has only been a month.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve been to Russia, twice. My mother in law, who lives in Kazan, couldn’t believe when we told her that trump has the lowest rating by any modern president because the media is so controlled, that she thought trump was the greatest thing to happen to the USA. Trump is following Putins’ lead in trying to turn the USA into another Russia by demolishing our constitution, and religion has turned people into brain dead zombies that can be sold a paradise EVEN AFTER they are dead.


  19. Well, I am very sorry for what happens in US, Trumph is definitely taking the wrong way and I hope this will not last too long.
    Regarding Hitler, I completely fell your father, I have the same obsession, I am curios about everything linked to his personality.
    You forgot to mention that he was a vegetarian because HE LOVED ANIMALS :)))))))))) ! this is the best part, one of the most interesting dilemmas.
    Good article!


Leave a Reply to Mr B J Mann Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s