Liberal Progressives main moral argument for gun control is to protect students from gun violence (school shootings) This court decision granted the school the ability to limit 1st Amendment Rights because of safety. If the Cinco de Mayo element in the school is so unsafe that the school fears violence from them over something as simple wearing an American flag T shirt on the anniversary of a foreign holiday why are they not suspended? Is the school caving in to blackmail threats of do it our way or their will be blood? Why are not Liberal Progressives protesting the violent element in this school that threatens students safety like it was a firearm. Either you care about student safety or you don’t!
December 22, 2013 at 2:32pm
That will be good as long as they do not require Catholics to sell contraception. If not one cool lawsuit for discrimination.
November 10, 2013 at 6:41pm
If a Black politician pretended to be White and a predominately white district elected him only to find out he was Black and complain about the deception. This district would have had Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton calling it the most racist district in America. MLK said not by the color of your skin but by the content of your character. The voters of Mr Wilson’s district were obviously upset because he was the wrong race. I can see race is more important to that district then the ability of the man they elected, does that make them the most racist district in America?
October 13, 2013 at 6:50pm
This reminds me of the very liberal Doonesberry cartoon in the 70s when Nixon was President. The cartoonist Trudeau depicted the White House sandbagged in and protected by barbed wire and patrolled by tanks because he claimed Nixon was under siege. The liberal Trudeau must be spitting nails to see his liberal idol Mr Obama actually besieged and protected by barricades backed up by mounted and Armored car equipped police.
October 13, 2013 at 9:08am
I like that in the article on one of the Generals, the Military said his firing did not involve sexual misconduct or adultery, as both are serious offenses that could cause a Court Martial. Unlike Commander in Chief Bill Clinton who could commit adultery and still keep his job without being demoted. Military personnel have a code of conduct they must adhere to, the Commander in Chief does not.
August 2, 2013 at 5:40pm
Cracker is now a legitimate term to call your political opponents? Mr Rangel a “liberal” openminded, progrssive wants to make racial slurs acceptable in political discourse. I think if his political opponents were to lower themselves to his gutter level they would be branded as worse then the Klan. He is an old bitter man who has been reduced to juvenile name calling to replace intellectual debate. Age has withered his mental alertness pity he still has followers.
July 21, 2013 at 10:14pm
She is right just being Black is not the reason to be suspected. In her list of walking while Black, driving while Black; she forgot Travon Martin’s pounding someone you think is unarmed while Black right before he shoots you.
July 14, 2013 at 11:12am
Mr Sharpton believes this is an atrocity, much more then when he tried to have innocent men charged with rape and kidnapping He knew in the Tawana Brawley case his accusations were false but created racial unrest to serve his own ends and try to see innocent men go to jail. Mr Sharpton is himself an atrocity and it amazes me a Julius Streicher type race baiter like Mr Sharpton would be hired by any news media outlet.
June 10, 2013 at 1:10pm
Very good article but when you read it what id the one thing that stands out? That Mr. Obama was false to his supporters from the beginning. He was a man with a poor voting record in government and a gift for oratory, but he would be America’s first African-American President and for many liberals that was an article of faith as strong as the lords prayer. For a good 48% of the population admitting he had human failings and not as great as they believed is like taking Jesus off the cross. The sad part is 50 years from now we still will not have an accurate view of the man because for his faithful, particularly liberal historians a failed President Obama would be blasphemy.
March 17, 2013 at 8:22am
Best way to look at the world without a USA would be take a Glimpse at July 1940. France defeated, England alone facing Nazi Germany but this time no Atlantic Charter, No Lend Lease and no 50 old destroyers in exchange for bases deal. No US Factories making Sherman tanks to be sent to Gen Montgomery’s 8th Army for El Alamein. No food grown in America for England. Without a significant threat to occupied France, Hitler could concentrate fully on Russia which also would not get anything in Lend Lease (those wonderful Studebaker trucks and Roosevelt Sausage, Spam).
A Europe Dominated not by the Euro and the EU but by the Reichmark and the Third Reich.
Not to mention a militaristic Japan dominating Asia. To quote the song “oh what a world it would be.” minus allot of freedom.
at the same time, the nazi's might have never come to power if it werent for the US.....
Forget the fact that american banks fueled Hitler's military machine. When the US intervened in WWI, it altered the balance of power and because of that, the Treaty of Versailes (spelling?) became much more harsh - in fact the reports indicate that the USA pushed for a harsh treaty because our banks wanted their loans repaid. As we all know, the harsh terms of the treaty resulted in severe economic hardships in Germany - which ultimately led to rise of nazis.
History is impossible to unravel when you account for all the players and facts. For that reason, this movie is a stupid exercise
Yep, way to many factors. The US has influenced the world both good and bad ways. It has ended dictators, but also inspired and empowered dictators.
If the US hadn't existed, Marx probably wouldn't have been inspired in some of his socialist and communist thought. Since the US was an example he often went back to to prove why his ideal was superior to US capitalism...
But the world would probably be stuck in mostly monarchy and caliphates...
Another thing the Nazis got from the US was the eugenics movement. Without the US and its ideas of 'super races', the Nazis probably wouldn't have gotten the idea to commit mass genocide based on racial superiority.
Plus it was US involvement in the last year of the First World War (and US supplies to allied countries before that), that pretty much ended WW1. IF Kaiser had won, there probably wouldn't have been nazis. But the german empire would have been very different.
Would WW1 even happened (or happened in the same way or same time) if you take into consideration that some of the things that lead up to it was the Arms Race between US and other naval powers?
I haven't seen the movie, of course, but I hope it is more like an exposition on what a society that rejected millennia of class-based-on-birth societies to embrace class-based-on-achievement revolutionized the world was able to accomplish rather than what the world would have evolved to without it.
I agree the latter is a futile exercise, Western Culture was already trending in that direction and would have likely achieved it without the USA. However, I also think we do not well understand (nor is it taught in schools) the overwhelming benefits this class structure enabled.
In previous class systems, entrepreneurs / merchants were a low, under-appreciated class. Here, they flourished as the primary vehicle for class advancement.
All your assumptions would be true if it weren't fo the fact that Hitler came to power due to the effects of the treaty of Versailles. World War 1 would have a different out come as well. but then you would have to go back futher. The French Revolution was in spired by the American Revolution. But if you go back to our revolution England wouldn't have t spend so much money on tha war that they might have gone after the French. Its too difficult to say what small changes could have effected long term. The trae that England had with colonies, ect.
There was no chance of Nazi Germany winning World War II, even if the United States did not exist. By letting British Troops escape to Britain at Dunkirk and allowing Göring to head the Luftwaffe the Blitz failed, thus preventing Operation Sea Lion from coming to fruition. Even if Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union the Soviet Union would have eventually invaded him. The scientists who escaped Germany to the United States to develop the Atomic Bomb would have likely gone to Britain if the United States did not exist, and so the Manhattan Project would have been inevitably completed which would decimate the German war machine.
What if can be played out. Like other forecasts they are more accurate the closer they are to the jumping off point.
How about this what if. The Germans take control of Gibraltar & Malta (just 2 tiny insignificant plots of land) during WW2 in 1940/41. Keeping Rommel in supply & the British more Out of supply
Or the King of Yugoslavia not being overthrown which allows for 10 or so more weeks of campaigning time in the 1st summer in Russia.
January 13, 2013 at 9:24am
The actual author of the phrase “Assault Rifle” was Adolph Hitler in 1944 when he gave that name to the MP-44 (Maschinenpistolle 1944) a new German rifle capable of both semi and automatic fire. He called it the Sturmgewehr or Assault Weapon. This was the father of all military rifles after WWII and the model (although denied by the Russians) of the AK-47, designed later but very similar in function and form to the Sturmgewehr-44. We today ride a wave of anti-intellectualism similar to Germany in the early 30s when politicians and media focussed on simple ideas and slogans rather then intellectual discourse. Today it is as back then class warfare and blaming certain groups for (Jews then, Conservatives now) societies problems was easily accepted by the masses with media support, during a time of economic disruption.
December 21, 2012 at 1:45pm
The NRA needs to emphasize some facts. So called Assault Rifles are used in 2% of gun crimes in America. 95% of crimes involving firearms, the guns were illegally obtained. The US History of bans is dismal, remember banning alcohol called Prohibition. a Democrat (FDR) repealled that failure. Then there was the War on Drugs, ask any liberal how effective that was. The attacks on the NRA are part of a political agenda that was started before the unfortunate students of that school were even born. The fact is media for the most part supports that agenda meaning more stories will continue to be written for a longer period of time then the combined media covered Benghazi.
December 15, 2012 at 11:15pm
The celebs are right, banning guns will work as well as Prohibition did in the 20s and The War on Drugs. Well OK the celebs wont mention those two failures but this time it is different. Because when a country bans guns , like Norway for instance, you never have a student massacre in a country like that. oh wait that did happen last year. Ok but this time it will really really work because no one would be able to buy guns since no one would think of selling them illegally, well except Eric Holder.
He calls voter ID laws the devil, yet Federal Law requires two forms of ID (I-9 form) in order to prove citizenship and get a job in the US. That you need two forms of ID off a very specific list on the back of the I-9 form doesnt bother him or seem disciminatory. (requirement has been around for years) No ID no Job, he is OK with that. No ID no Vote and he evokes Satan.
July 30, 2012 at 7:38pm
The M1 tank was conceived over 40 years ago and entered US service 32 years ago. It has been the finest tank in the world for the last 32 years and a revolution in tank design. It has gone through a number of modifications since it entered service in 1980 (the longest a model of tank has stayed in continous service). Armchair strategists pronounced the death of armored warefare in 1945 (because of nuclear weapons), Then proclaimed it dead again in 1973 because of wireguided Antitank missiles and handheld antitank weapons used in the Yom Kippur war. Once again in 2012 they are trying to say due to counterinsurgency warfare the day of the tank is past. Anything that persistently proves its critics wrong should be maintained!
LEADER233 Is correct. The sneaky part of the appropriations in question, is simply restoring the returning tanks into combat ready status. Watch your highways and rail lines closely. There are hundreds of pieces of equipment that are being transported to holding areas awaiting release of funding to rebuild and refit. We are low on vehicles ready to deploy. That is how Obama and company can continue dragging feet on readiness. A good way to slow ready status is to keep the stuff in the field too long between re fitment.
When WWI started, we were behind in military equipment (both technically and numerically). When WWII started, we were behind in military equipment. Carter cut defense so much we had to cannibalize fully functioning equipment to provide parts for spares. Just because we've had these small wars doesn't mean we won't have big ones in the future. Iran is nuking up and Russia & China are on their side. I'd rather keep the M1 and not need it than not have it and need it. If you want to cut something big, retire one boomer sub. They are built to act as a retaliation weapon anyway (after we're all particulate matter in the upper atmosphere). Ohio class sub - $2Billion. M1A2 - $6.1Million. One sub pays for 322 tanks. Don't put all your eggs (money) in one basket.
We could also save $3,358 per month by taking one Radical Islamic Major from Ft. Hood and put a .50BMG right between his eyes for being a traitor.
June 16, 2012 at 2:35pm
The Uboat Commander was in process of returning back to Germany, he had only one torpedo left when he attacked the Lusitania. He did not now what cargo the Lusitania held but did see that she was listed in Jane’s Fighting Ships (1914 edition) as a reserve auxillary cruiser. This was his justification for his not warning before sinking. The Royal Navy had helped Cunard fund the construction of the Lusitania and Mauretania so then could be used as reserve naval vessals in wartime. The Royal Navy would have installed six inch naval guns on both ships, but this had not been done at the time the Lusitania was torpedoed. Her appearance in Jane’s Fighting Ships was justification enough for U-boat Commander Scweiger.
It seems as thought the psychology of war has not changed since the species, learn to walk on two legs. The bank of military actions have moved dramatically when the professional soldier class became available.
In concert with a lifelong political elite class,brings us to today.
Think Rome & Homer.
September 2, 2011 at 7:37pm
Those maps were previously used by FDR as talking points to support the US entering into war with Germany prior to Pearl Harbor. Life magazine published them in 1942 after we entered into the war to refocus Americans on Europe, when everyone wanted to strike at Japan first. The German Navy was incapable of supporting an invasion of Great Britain in 1940, and was the primary reason Hitler cancelled Operation Sea Lion or the invasion of England. An invasion of the US, 3,000 miles away would have had the German Navy laughing at such a crazy , foolish concept. When they did hit the US coast in 1942 it was with just six U-boats all they could muster to reach the US.