Remembering Barbarossa

Reading Goldberg is like sniffing chloroform or reading Stephen Miller.
I am fond of exposing the ignorance of Democrat voters, you, and this is a perfect example of your waddling into the trap.

I merely asked if you had read the work you are ordered to condemn, and, of course, you haven't.

Sadly, one more example of the sort of dunce government schooling turns out.
 
1. Every day, and in so very many ways, government school lies to its captive audience, often by omission.
They may or may not tell of significant historic events......but even when they do, they leave out context and pertinent details.


This day, June 22, or 1941, two Leftist, Socialist regimes fought.......and should have been encouraged to fight to the death......both of their deaths.


2. Operation Barbarossa was the code name for the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, which started on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during World War II. The operation put into action Nazi Germany's ideological goal of conquering the western Soviet Union so as to repopulate it with Germans. Wikipedia


3.
View attachment 353480

The two were allies until this date, with Stalin providing the materials Germany lacked, for Hitler's Blitzkrieg.
Common parade of German Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army on September 23, 1939 in Brest, Eastern Poland at the end of the Poland Campaign. In the center is Major General Heinz Guderian; and on the right is Brigadier General Semyon Krivoshein.


4. Franklin Roosevelt faced a difficult decision.....he didn't know which of his 'pals' to support.

It came down to this:
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington
until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48



FDR made a terrible mistake: he turned over American foreign policy to Stalin.


5. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
Chic

FDR turned over what the fuck.
 
I am fond of exposing the ignorance of Democrat voters, you, and this is a perfect example of your waddling into the trap.

I merely asked if you had read the work you are ordered to condemn, and, of course, you haven't.

Sadly, one more example of the sort of dunce government schooling turns out.
You are a fun fraud, yes.
 
How could I be a fascist if my side supports free speech and yours doesn't?


Now, take care, if my query causes you to attempt to think, because if this is a first time at thinking, it may cause an aneurysm.
You only support your speech to be free, but seek to punish those that disagree.

We see thru you.
 
Chic

FDR turned over what the fuck.
PC either is a fool or fraud. She is also a 2025 Heritage giggly girl.
How could I be a fascist if my side supports free speech and yours doesn't?


Now, take care, if my query causes you to attempt to think, because if this is a first time at thinking, it may cause an aneurysm.
My side says if you think you won the election, then provide the evidence. No one is denying you your free speech.

If your side says you get to defame and vilify and threaten the trial process, judges, staffs, and jurors, then you are wrong.
 
You only support your speech to be free, but seek to punish those that disagree.

We see thru you.
Example?

Democrats put an anti-free speech advocate on the Supreme Court, and passed a law forbidding free speech:
. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?


Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


"My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!"

Trump, SOTU 2020





Did you vote for free speech or against it?
 
PC either is a fool or fraud. She is also a 2025 Heritage giggly girl.

My side says if you think you won the election, then provide the evidence. No one is denying you your free speech.

If your side says you get to defame and vilify and threaten the trial process, judges, staffs, and jurors, then you are wrong.
"No one is denying you your free speech."


Democrat Kagan on Free Speech:

America is not America sans the Constitution.

The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Yet the Democrats put this on the Supreme Court:

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.
That paper asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"


Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

Via The Volokh Conspiracy comes this blast from Elena Kagan’s past. The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Littl…
thedaleygator.wordpress.com

thedaleygator.wordpress.com

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia




“Earlier this week, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her minority dissent to the Janus ruling that the Court had “weaponized the First Amendment.”

The majority opinion dwelt on issues of compelled speech, noting that “because such compulsion so plainly violates the Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compelling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least as threatening.”

Kagan, however, has other ideas and claimed in her dissent that

“The First Amendment was meant for better things,” she concluded.

Kagan’s fantastical notion of “black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices” by “weaponizing the First Amendment” is puzzling. Citizens in non-right-to-work states are completely free to join a union if they so wish, and in doing so, commit to paying union dues. The only change here is that unions can no longer extort dues from non-members in any state.

Citizens’ choices have not been overridden; indeed, citizen choice is expanded under this ruling. They can join a union or not join a union, those who do not join cannot be compelled to pay union dues, but they are also not barred from doing so if they wish.

Her point about “weaponizing the First Amendment” is equally confounding. The Founders intended the First Amendment to be a weapon . . . against government tyranny and oppression. They were insistent that freedom of speech was required to check government and to maintain a free and independent citizenry.”
Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?



What is the difference between Fascists and Democrats????



Good question.
 
P C posts vague accusations and nonsense. She proposes what she wants to write is protected free speech, no matter how liable and or criminal. Such is not so. She is a Not See.
 
Example?

Democrats put an anti-free speech advocate on the Supreme Court, and passed a law forbidding free speech:
. Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors 2of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?


Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


"My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!"

Trump, SOTU 2020





Did you vote for free speech or against it?
College students questioning Bibi’s military actions in GAZA which are causing upwards of 40,000 dead with not real end game.

And advocating for retribution.
 
College students questioning Bibi’s military actions in GAZA which are causing upwards of 40,000 dead with not real end game.

And advocating for retribution.
Why would you attempt to change the subject other than because of how badly I have beaten you.
You are dismissed.
 
P C posts vague accusations and nonsense. She proposes what she wants to write is protected free speech, no matter how liable and or criminal. Such is not so. She is a Not See.
In our discussions here in this thread, we have given readers a clear indication of why your party and your principles require censorship and/or violence. I clearly destroy your post with examples, documentation, and aplomb.

My suggestion is that you avoid attempting to joust with anyone on my side as it exposes your inadequacy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top