FBI Arrests Pro-Trump Florida Man As Suspected Mail Bomber

The FBI lived up to its international reputation in nailing the suspected mail bomber within just a few days of the first appearance of pipe bombs at the offices or homes of leading critics of President Donald Trump.  He is Cesar A. Sayoc, 56, a Trump supporter and body builder with a criminal history.  He has appeared at Trump rallies and identifies himself as a Native American for Trump.  He has been described as a “muscle head stripper” for his former boss.

Sayoc worked for Chippendales as a tour manager who was convicted of battery and grand theft in 2014.  This long criminal record includes a 2002 charge with threatening to “throw, project, place, or discharge any destructive device.”  That a second-degree felony resulted in one year of probation.

He filed for bankruptcy in 2012

Sayoc filed for bankruptcy, in June 2012. At the time, he was living with his mother and owed more than $20,000 to creditors, mostly banks.

His total employment income the year before was just over $7,500. And he had collected about $16,000 in unemployment between 1009 and 2010, according to the bankruptcy records.

Syoc also lost his Fort Lauderdale home in a foreclosure in September 2009, according to court records. He filed for bankruptcy protection in June 2012. The court records in that case state he had just $4,175 in assets, including a 2001 Chevy Tahoe with 285,000 miles, and $21,109 in liabilities.

 His van is covered in pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, anti-CNN stickers.

At least some of  the packages went through a US Postal Service facility in Opa-locka, Florida. Notably, the FBI is calling them “potentially destructive devices” and it is not clear if they could detonate or why they did not.  Ultimately, they use of the devices to cause terror will still qualify the defendant for the enhanced sentencing under terrorism laws.

466 thoughts on “FBI Arrests Pro-Trump Florida Man As Suspected Mail Bomber”

  1. Paul, hear is an update on the Project Vertas video I sent. I can only include the text. I can’t include pictures including pictures of Sinema and Lauren Fromm together. The video with Snarr is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3AEb8t0lAc&utm_source=PVaction&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id%3A498378484&utm_campaign=AZ+Update+10.30

    Arizona U.S. Senate candidate, Kyrsten Sinema, has almost immediately responded to our undercover investigation exposing her staff saying she is a fake moderate.

    Sinema was shown the undercover tapes LIVE on KTAR 92.3 radio in Arizona and fumbled when she was asked if she was really a progressive trying to trick moderate voters.

    Here’s the transcript of Sinema being questioned on Arizona radio:

    HOST: Now there’s something that just came out yesterday. Project Veritas which is known for using hidden cameras.

    SINEMA: And those guys are convicted criminals.

    HOST: Well, they do go and they capture people saying things that sometimes they wouldn’t say in public, they say in private instead. The video they put out yesterday this is not great, it’s Lauren Fromm which Project Veritas says is a field organizer for your campaign, here’s a little bit of that video…


    HOST: Okay so first off, is Lauren Fromm part of your team and second, is she telling the truth? Are you a progressive and are you just acting moderate to get elected?

    SINEMA: Well I don’t know who Lauren is, so I can’t answer that question.

    HOST: They say she’s a field organizer for your campaign.

    SINEMA: Well let’s take everything they say with a grain of salt.

    The Senate candidate is asking us to take it with a grain of salt that Lauren Fromm, the field organizer, works for her. Sinema can say whatever she wants, but when I walked into Sinema’s field office, Lauren Fromm was standing right there!

    And when Sinema says that she doesn’t know Lauren, just take a look at this picture of the two of them together:

    Fromm and Sinema

    This all comes on the heels of the video being shown on primetime cable news, on Sean Hannity’s program! And it’s being covered by Arizona media as well.

    The largest newspaper in Arizona has already covered this story, quoting the field organizer Madison Snarr facetiously stating, “She’s going to stand up and protect Arizona values, whatever the f*** that means.”

    I was in Arizona yesterday to get comment from Snarr and received the following response:

    James: Could you explain —

    Madison: I believe what I said. I believe she’s going to stand up and protect Arizona’s values.

    James: You said whatever the ‘f’ that means.

    Madison: I mean that – that um… changes. As time goes on… Arizonans have evolved throughout the years. Sinema has as well. I think she’s a great candidate.

    James: Whatever the “F” that means though. Isn’t that mocking the idea that a senator would represent the state she is from?

    Madison: That was a glib statement . . .

    1. Allan – Sinema is backing and hoeing as fast as she can. She will never cover all of this up.

        1. Anonymous – the gotcha moments are not of Sinema, but rather of her staff and donors. Sinema is scripted and stays there. Her staff and donors are not.

      1. Paul, take note how anonymous comes up with her knee jerk reaction and immediately runs not to find whether or not Sinema was being truthful but to find something to soothe her ideological concerns.

        ” didn’t even amount to a minor bug bite.”

        It may not amount to much because Democrats like Sinema lie all the time and people are used to it so those voting solely for the party will vote for her no matter what she says. But if some of the voters are getting tired of the lies they might start to move away from the party.

        Democrats have lost tremendously all over the nation from governors on down. They lost this past Presidential election when it should have been in their win column. They talked big about a blue wave but that doesn’t seem to be coming and it could turn out to be a Democratic defeat.


    1) “Democrats supported Jim Crow”.

    2) “Today’s liberals are philosophically linked to Nazi Germany”.


    The idea is to cast contemporary American liberals as heirs to a legacy of violence and racism.

    ‘Democrats suppressed Southern Blacks for a century. And Democrat designs for big government create disturbing parallels with Hitler’s Germany. What’s more, their defense of legal abortion puts American liberals on the same moral plane as Nazi genocides!’


    The message is that ‘Democrats are godless, horrible people. Therefore Conservatives are right to be mean when dealing with liberals. Trump must be rude to Democrats. They oppressed the Blacks and took ideas from Hitler.’


    As these talking points gain traction, crazed losers feel a duty in directing terror towards Trump’s many enemies.


    Any creative person, with an evil agenda, can think of ways to demonize individuals, groups and institutions. Donald Trump is that creative person. Trump succeeded in Reality TV because he had the skills to hold an audience.

    Yes, Southern Democrats supported Jim Crow laws for almost 100 years. But Jim Crow laws also existed throughout the Northern states; many of which were governed by Republicans. The KKK was particularly strong in 1920’s Indiana under Republican control.

    One should note Republicans currently dominate all those Southern states Democrats used to govern. For that reason Republicans are staunchly opposed to abortion. Yet Republicans see no reason for gun regulations. These contradictory views reflect the sentiments of Southern Whites.

    With regards to Blacks, Republicans feign respect while legislating policies hostile to Blacks.
    In every state, under Republican control, laws are passed to discourage Black voters. ‘Right To Work’ laws sabotage labor unions. Yet Republicans oppose any hike in the Minimum Wage. What’s more Republicans employ many schemes to cut Social Safety Nets. All these policies are punitive to Blacks, Hispanics and poor Whites.

    Comparing legal abortion to Nazi genocides fails to articulate the alternative. Americans scarcely want women jailed for ending pregnancies. Nor do we want hospitals calling the police on routine miscarriages. And Doctors should be free to give the best advice. We don’t want doctors gagged with regards to women’s health!


    Trump era talking points to demonize Democrats are stupid and deceitful. There are good reasons the mainstream media portrays Donald Trump as dangerously rash. His constant demonizing of various enemies incites deluded losers!

    1. That’s hilarious! The real conclusion is the Republicans don’t need talking points as long as we have the likes of you identifying them for us

      Please do continue.

  3. Trump would do a lot to help unify the country if he declared that an attempted terrorist attack against any American is an attack against all Americans. This is what President Bush and President Obama did after 9/11 and the Boston Marathon attacks.

    Instead, he has gone right back to labelling CNN as an “enemy” days after it was subjected to attempted terrorism.

    He is feeding into the climate of hate that encourages people to commit terrorism.

    There were over 5 congressional inquiries into the causes of the Benghazi attacks over a 3-year period. The Benghazi attack wasn’t even committed on US shores and Benghazi has never been subject to US law.

    I hope Congress puts as much effort into investigating domestic terrorism.

      1. a bunch of bible thumpers are not “fascists” by any meaningful use of the term. it’s the same kind of stupidity that calls muslim fanatics “islamofascists” another nonsensical misuse of terminology

        1. that calls muslim fanatics “islamofascists” another nonsensical misuse of terminology

          Islamist regimes and movements have the signatures of fascist movements:

          1. Revanchism
          2. Revisionism in regional state systems, with violence
          3. Constitutional authoritarianism, often exceptionally intrusive and violent
          4. National mobilization (as happens in ordinary countries only in wartime). Islamic discourse is a component of the mobilization regime.

          By contrast, the Christian Right is an advocate of policy measures which are predominantly defensive (none of which are novel). Bozos like Hedges fancy evangelicals should have the mentality commonly attributed to battered wives: they get beat up and it’s their fault.

  4. Peter, they have busted you. Get help.

    “Government auditors traced a malware infection back to a single porn-watching employee within the U.S. Geological Survey.”
    The agency’s inspector general traced the malicious software to a single unnamed USGS employee, who reportedly used a government-issued computer to visit some 9,000 adult video sites, according to a report published Oct. 17. Many of the prohibited pages were linked to Russian websites containing malware, which was ultimately downloaded to the employee’s computer and used to infiltrate USGS networks, auditors found.

      1. I’m terrified of porno sites. They’re loaded with spyware. And any porn site could be a front for hackers and scammers.

        One should also note that soft-core porn is widely available in many different mediums. Soft-core porn is, in fact, a public staple of sorts. Madison Avenue employs it more than anyone.

  5. Democrats are crooks, liars and racists towards Blacks.
    Just ask Florida Democrat Governor candidate Andrew Gillum


    “Beset by new questions about relationships with lobbyists and FBI agents, Andrew Gillum has been short on answers.

    The Democratic nominee for governor was quick to claim vindication and political persecution after a former confidant released hundreds of emails and text messages last week detailing Gillum’s travel and campaign activity in 2016. He’s dismissed an imbroglio about whether he failed to disclose gifts from developers who turned out to be undercover federal agents as “made-up FBI controversies.”

    But Tallahassee’s mayor has been either unable or unwilling to answer some of the questions posed about his trips around the globe. And while his campaign denies new allegations that a federal investigator paid $4,300 to cater a kick-off fundraiser for the political committee funding his gubernatorial run, it can’t explain why finance reports contain no mention of any expenses surrounding the event.

    “I’ve said frankly everything that I know to say on this,” Gillum said Saturday in Tampa during an interview on his campaign bus. “Now folks are asking me to answer for which caterer does what? I’ve done more events than I could count. I couldn’t tell you anything about a food venue or quite frankly whether somebody cooked it or somebody catered it. But that apparently is the new expectation.”

    If Gillum sounds a little exasperated, it might be because he’s been answering questions about the FBI for about 20 months now. It was June of 2017 when prosecutors hit City Hall and a Tallahassee redevelopment agency with subpoenas for documents related to development deals and a handful of lobbyists and entrepreneurs, including Gillum’s close friend and former campaign treasurer, Adam Corey.

    Gillum, already a candidate for governor at the time, quickly acknowledged that he’d met with federal investigators but said he’d been explicitly told that he’s not a subject of any FBI probe. A few months later, he told the Tallahassee Democrat that he’d severed ties with Corey, a lobbyist who in 2016 set up a meeting at his restaurant and an evening in Manhattan between Gillum and undercover FBI agents posing as developers and business investors.

    Plenty of people thought the FBI probe — which spun-off several ethics complaints and ensuing state investigations around the mayor’s travel — would tank Gillum’s primary campaign. It didn’t. Nor have predictions of impending indictments come true: No one has been charged with any crimes, and the state’s Commission on Ethics hasn’t deemed Gillum to have violated any Florida laws.

    But the cloud hasn’t dissipated, and Republican Ron DeSantis didn’t make it past his first post-primary win interview before tearing into Gillum and suggesting the Tallahassee mayor was corrupt. Over time, the race has taken on a tenor eerily similar to the 2016 presidential campaign, with shouts of “Lock him up!” reportedly peppering DeSantis events Sunday.”

  6. Deny this

    Blacks are leaving the Democrat Socialists Party in droves.
    Thank you Kanye West…blacks will be free once they abandon their DNC slave owners

    President LBJ’s True Motivations
    “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” President Lyndon B Johnson (D).

      1. Democrats were defenders of slavery pre-Civil War and still are post-Civil War.

        Break the vicious cycle of slavery. Lynch Democrats at the polls. 💩👻😈

      2. From the Snopes article that always softens the blow for Democrats and twists their responses to convince their dull witted followers of things that aren’t true.

        LBJ “referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “nigger bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues.”

        “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”

        According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin LBJ said: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.

        But Snopes, despite what anonymous calls little evidence, says: “MacMillan, who claimed he overheard the exchange” Then Snopes finally says: “, it wouldn’t have been entirely out of character for LBJ to have said something like, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years,””

        One cannot believe the spin anonymous likes to place on all of her quotes and statements. In that way she is very much like Diane and may actually be her, but who cares? Doubling the intellect of a zero leaves one with zero.

      3. Snopes is weak. Johnson was a thoroughgoing racist like 90% of Texas were in his day, of either party, at every class level. Snopes is a fool.

        1. “Johnson was a thorough going racist like 90% of Texas were in his day, of either party, at every class level.” -Mr. Kurtz.

          And if you read the article, you’d know that Johnson’s crude ways and racist views aren’t disputed.

    1. “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

      – LBJ in “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson”

      “Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation.”

      — Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938, spoken during a six-hour speech against the anti-lynching bill

      “I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union.”

      — Robert C. Byrd, 1946, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-2010, Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-2010

      1. Nonetheless, Robert Byrd was a great American. I wish Democrats were more like him and not the craven idiots they are today.

        Johnson, there is a lot to dislike, and I only admire him for his awesome byzantine cunning.

        Roger Stone says that Nixon said:

        “Lbj and I would both have killed to be president. Only, I didn’t.”

        1. Nonetheless, Robert Byrd was a great American. I wish Democrats were more like him and not the craven idiots they are today.

          1. His capsule biographies remark no particular trade followed prior to entering politics. He was employed as a butcher at the time of the 1940 Census. The income he claimed to the enumerator would have been about 10% higher than the mean for West Virginia at that time. . Inneresting.

          2. He was in the odd minority of men born in 1917 who had no military service during the 2d World War.

          3. Organizing klaverns in West Virginia was an oddly passe activity in 1942, rather like organizing War Bond rallies in 1963. The 2d incarnation of the Klan was a fad organization that had a five-digit membership in 1919, a 7 digit membership in 1922, and a five digit membership in 1935. It formally dissolved in 1944. West Virginia’s an upland state where the black population is modest – about 6% of the total at that time. One other thing. The West Virginia congressional delegation had seven members in 1964 and 1965. Six of them cast ballots in favor of two pieces of legislation passed at that time beneficial to blacks. Guess who the other one was?

          4. He held elective office without interruption from 1947 until he died in 2010. He was in Congress for 57 years.

          5. One of his signature activities was moving federal offices to West Virginia.

          I’d rather federal officials were anything but like this guy.

  7. “A Week Of American Hate: Bombs Mailed, Black People Executed, Jews Slaughtered”

    “Hate showed what it is truly capable of in America this week.”

    By Andy Campbell and Sebastian Murdock


    “A man executed two black people at a grocery store, but didn’t engage a white man outside because “whites don’t shoot whites.” A Donald Trump supporter and apparent anti-Semite who looked up to white supremacists sent bombs in the mail to the president’s opposition. An avowed anti-Semite walked into a synagogue and killed 11 people after screaming, “All Jews must die!”

    “This was one week in American hate.”

    1. “And then on Saturday, American hate came full circle.

      “An anti-Semite named Robert Bowers allegedly walked into a synagogue in Pittsburgh, screamed “All Jews must die!” and then shot and killed at least 11 people and wounded more.

      “Scans of Bowers’ social media activity ― mostly on Gab, a hub for the likes of violent neo-Nazis ― reveal that he despised Jews and subscribed to various conspiracy theories about a migrant caravan in Mexico. His anger and anxiety, fueled by the idea that Jews were bringing immigrants into the country to displace white people, ended in what’s being called the “deadliest attack on the Jewish community in the history of the United States.”

      “Bowers’ hate was the same as the others’. It was blind; it was given tacit endorsement through violent rhetoric coming from our pundits and our president; and it had a strong community in which to fester and grow. His act capped off a week in which hate showed what it is truly capable of in America.” -from the linked article

    2. commented – fake bombs were sent, not bombs. The killer at the synagogue was very anti-Trump, but that does not show up in the article. Nor the fact that Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. And how any of that is tied to a guy who kills two blacks, regardless of how horrible that is, I do not understand. HuffPo is trying to tie this all to Trump. It is all Trump’s fault that a guy with roid rage goes nuts and sends out fake bombs. Did Trump sell him the roids? No, he was taking those when he was and still is a registered Democrat.

      1. PH SAYS

        Paul, beware, that Anonymous you respond to here is an invader of some kind. My comments this last 1/2 hour have come out as Anonymous.

        1. “Paul, beware, that Anonymous you respond to here is an invader of some kind.” -PH

          Nonsense. I’m not “an invader” — and knowing that anyone can post as “Anonymous,” I’m not concerned when I see an anonymous comment that isn’t mine.

          If one doesn’t enter a name and email address, the name that appears with the comment is “Anonymous.”

          There may be other reasons, as Darren has indicated, but perhaps your name and email address aren’t present when you’re attempting to post a comment?

          And be sure to check the box that is next to the following info:

          “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

      2. Let’s start with your last sentence, Paul. This isn’t the first time that you’ve spread false rumors on this blog.

        Paul’s claim:

        “No, he was taking those when he was and still is a registered Democrat.” So says Paul.



        Many other laypeople on Twitter also claimed that Sayoc is a registered Democrat.

        Verdict: False

        Records show that Sayoc registered as a Republican in March 2016.

        Sayoc’s record on Nexis shows that he registered as a Republican in Florida on March 4, 2016. He frequently posted in support of President Donald Trump and criticized Democrats on social media.

        Loomer and others pointed to Sayoc’s profile on MyLife, a website that collects information like addresses, birthdays and other public records on adults in the U.S., to back up the claim that he is a registered Democrat.

        MyLife listed Sayoc’s party affiliation as the “Democrat Party” as of 3:59 p.m. GMT on Friday, or 11:59 a.m. EST, an archived version of the web page shows. One minute later, it showed his party affiliation was the Republican Party.

        It is not clear whether Sayoc’s “Democrat Party” listing was created by MyLife or another user. The company did not respond to a request for comment.

        MyLife allows anyone to change public information for a person’s listed political party, ethnicity, religion, income, work history and more. After Sayoc’s arrest, people also edited his profile to say that he worked for the Democratic National Committee and billionaire George Soros and changed his listed religion to “Scientologist” and “Jewish.”

        Sayoc is not the only victim of false information on MyLife. The site said that Obama is a member of the Republican Party as of Oct. 27.

        ConsumerAffairs reviews for MyLife allege that the website lists incorrect information and that it displays personal information without consent.

        1. Sayoc’s mind is warped. What his registration says matters little. No party wants anything to do with him. Those that wish to make into issue race, party, religion, etc. do not care that they are promoting this type of terrible action hoping to get personal benefit out of a heinous crime. The same goes with the anti-Semitic muderer in Pittsburgh.

          The focus should be on ending violence of all types whether it be from Nazi’s or Antifa and not supporting lawlessness or hate.

    3. … And who has been stirring up hate most of all? The leftist media. Though far from the worst comment made by the left was Holder’s “we kick them”.

      Let us not forget who the KKK represented, Democrats.

      1. “Let us not forget who the KKK represented, Democrats.” Says Allan.

        Back it up, Allan.


        “Our rating

        The Republican Party of Dane County claimed “the KKK was founded as the military arm of the Democratic Party.”

        There is little doubt that the political interests of the Klan and the Democratic Party, at least in the early years, intersected. But there is no evidence that it was founded as part of the Democratic Party, or that the party ever even had an official “military arm.”

        If a Democrat today claimed the KKK is the military arm of the Republican Party, we’d have a similar point of view.

        We rate the claim False.”

          1. “No, the Democratic Party didn’t create the Klu Klux Klan”

            No one said that, but that is how your spinmeisters work and in the end it seems they confuse you.

            White Democrats created the KKK and white Democrats didn’t want to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation.

            To paraphrase a black liberated woman: ‘Liberals believe that we blacks are their slaves.’

          2. commented – the Democratic Party did not create the KKK, but they became the party of the KKK.

        1. commented – I would say that this fact checking is cutting those hairs very fine. They are ignoring the entire history of the Klan and the Democratic Party in the South and how they worked hand in glove. It sure wasn’t Republicans who was lynching blacks in the South.

          1. I think it was anonymous who recently said that Venezuela was doing fine and would still be wonderful but for the fact that Chavez died of cancer. One can’t be surprised at the crazy comments anonymous is capable of making.

        2. Your article from a spin machine doesn’t deny that the KKK was made up predominantly of Democrats. Proof is easily found in the 1924 Democratic National Convention frequently referred to as the Klanbake after the KKK.

          “Democrats like to pretend they have a long history of fighting racism, but the truth is that it was Democrats who supported slavery, upheld Jim Crow laws, and were so deeply involved in the Ku Klux Klan that the 1924 Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City is called the “Klanbake” convention.

          Republicans fought against slavery in the south while Democrats defended it, and while Democrats pushed for segregation and Jim Crow laws, Republicans supported the Civil Rights act of 1964.

          The Democratic Party’s history of racism is undeniable…” __Scott Osborn

          1. ALLAN:


            They are the sons and grandsons of those onetime Democrats who supported Jim Crow. That is ‘why’ contemporary Republicans have an image problem with regards to racial matters. Their party now embraces policies that reflect stingy, provincial White southerners.

            1. The KKK Democratic members of Congress almost all remained Democrats until they died.Today, the party of black plantations is the Democratic Party that will harrass any black that decides to think for him or herself and stand with the other side. That is seen more and more. You saw that on CNN when a commentator said, “Kanye West is what happens when negroes don’t read”

              The Democratic plantation is not needed. Blacks can think for themselves and are every bit American as any white person whether they belong to the Republican or any other party.

              1. Allan, the Republican party is the party of choice for most White Southerners today. You can’t seem to acknowledge that because you live in a time-warp.

                1. Peter, by innuendo you are saying that White Southerners are racists. I think racists exist all over the nation and prior to Obama racism at least against blacks was on the wane. I would not state that southerners are more racist than northerners. That is part of your never ending identity politics.

                  Let us not forget that Clinton was an Arkansas Democrat and governor of his southern state as well as President. I am not casting a claim of racism against Clinton rather demonstrating how shallow your arguments are. President Carter was another Democrat born in the south as was LBJ, Truman and Wilson. Eisenhower was born in the south but was a Republican.

                  Your ignorance of history is only outweighed by your ignorance of present events though I must admit such ignorance should not exist in any educated being..

                  1. Allan, Carter was governor of Georgia more than 40 years ago! Clinton was governor of Arkansas 30 years ago. Those aren’t recent examples. Again, you’re living in a time warp.

                    1. 1. Mr. Carter is still alive.

                      2. He began his career as a segregationist and wasn’t above dirty-pool contra Carl Sanders, the premier ‘racial moderate’ in Georgia politics in that era. Then he did a complete about-face in 1971.

                      3. There are a grand total of four (4) Southern Republicans in Congress who were involved in politics prior to 1971. One was a public prosecutor in an upland jurisdiction in Kentucky which has almost no blacks. One volunteered at a Goldwater campaign office as an adolescent. One was a congressional aide employed by John Sherman Cooper and Marlow Cook who were – er – Rockefeller Republicans. One was elected to the Oklahoma legislature in 1966.

                      I have no clue why partisan Democrats keep peddling this meme that the Republican Party is implicated in Jim Crow – except, perhaps, the usual mixture of stupidity and dishonesty.

                    2. ” Again, you’re living in a time warp.”

                      Peter, you have the memory span of a pidgeon. These Democrat southerners you point to became Presidents and both are alive today. Hillary Clinton was the first lady of Arkansas and some Democrats still don’t realize she is not President today.

                      Your knowledge of recent history is appallingly lacking.

                  2. Eisenhower was born in the south but was a Republican.

                    Eisenhower grew up in Kansas. He was born during an interlude when his family was resident on the Texas-Oklahoma border, but they only resided there for a few years. His maternal-side relatives were ensconced in the peace churches.

                    Truman was born and raised in the Kansas City exurbs, not the Ozarks and Bootheel.

                    1. DSS, if you want to nit pick then understand that the place of birth is the place of birth. For Truman it was Missouri and for Eisenhower Texas. Where the parents lived often is influential in the life of a child, but the intersting part is the Kansas connection and when one thinks of Kansas in terms of the slavery dilemma one thinks of “bloody Kansas” and the Act of 1854.

                    2. Kansas was a free state during the Civil War. Over the period running from 1854 to 1930, Republicans won around 93% of the Congressional races held. I don’t think it ever counted as Southern. As for Eisenhower’s parents, their background was absolutely colonial-era German (‘Pennsylvania Dutch’ in some quarters). His mother grew up in the Shenandoah Valley, so you could call her Southern, but the more salient vector would be German Baptist Brethren.

                      The nitpick, Allan, is thinking that 3 years living in a town on the Texas-Oklahoma border (when Ike was in diapers) is of much significance.

                    3. DSS, despite what you think parents have a great impact on their children. In any event Kansas was not considered a southern state and the Act of 1864 was the Kansas – Nebraska Act quite important in pre Civil War history. Finally no matter what you wish to add the fact is that the listed birthplace of Truman was Missouri and the listed birthplace of Eisenhower was Texas. I wasn’t trying to provide a biography for either President.

                2. Allan, the Republican party is the party of choice for most White Southerners today.

                  You say that like it’s a bad thing.

        3. The KKK was created by the genius of cavalry tactics General Nathan Bedford Forrest. It was a sort of postwar resistance movement to Northern military governance and Reconstruction. Its aims in politics certainly did correspond to that of Democrats in the Reconstruction era.

          When it was disbanded by General Forrest, the aims had mostly been met.

          It was reborn in a later generation (1920s) as a sort of mail order lawful membership group for nativist wasp racists. That died when the head of the klan turned out to be a big pervert and a rapist. The whole purity thing didn’t play so well anymore. That was DC Stephenson. Now in that time period, there was an association between the Klan and Indiana governor Jackson. But there was a lot of membership from both parties based on what I have read.

          Then it was again reborn in the late 50s and 60s as an anti-integration movement, which bore a lot of resemblance to the original klan including with the illegal tactics. That lost steam when the Democrat party capitulated to Civil Rights under Johnson. After that, I feel that the association was totally discointinued, to be fair to Democrats of today.

          The KKK of the 70s and 80s was nothing, just a sensational talk show tv phenom, mostly. Then the KKK of the contemporary times is nothing more than a few hundred bozos with po boxes raking in a few “newsletter subscriptions” and trying for the occasional negative endorsement from the SPLC or ADL to boost their donations. Totally insignificant. Neither major party has had much truck with them in the contemporary era.

      1. Excellent work, anonymous.

        (Eventually PH will learn to recognize the difference between the one and only original anonymous versus the “ersatz Anonymous(es)”.

        [It’s in the content of the comments, Mr. Hill.]

          1. I know, Dr. Benson. But I piggybacked on your comment so that mine would be closer to the Anonymous comment that was directly below yours at the time that I posted. And, yes, I knew that would bother you. But I did it, anyway. I’m not sure that I’m sorry.

            1. ” I knew that would bother you. But I did it, anyway. I’m not sure that I’m sorry.”

              It sounds like Dr. Benson was innocent of misdeed yet Diane, at least on this blog, has a paucity of ethics and morality which lead to her statement above. She has some of the characteristics required to gain the noteriety had by some of the worst people in history.

              1. “She has some of the characteristics required to gain the noteriety had by some of the worst people in history.” So says Allan.

                Despicable comment by Allan. Not a surprise, but despicable nonetheless.

                1. “Despicable comment” ? Yes! But by Diane. She indicates that what she says may not be true and it could cause discomfort to another and then says: “. But I did it, anyway. I’m not sure that I’m sorry.”

                  Those words could have been said by any Stalinist figure.

                  1. “Those words could have been said by any Stalinist figure.” So says Allanucklehead.

                    Context is everything*. But I’m not a bit surprised that Allanucklehead would try to spin L4D’s words…

                    We’re talking about comments on a blog. Get a grip, Allan.

                    1. Diane/ anonymous, are you choking on your own words? Those words written by Diane are words that are not associated with a healthy mind. There wasn’t spinning. In fact I quoted Diane’s words exactly the way she said them.

                      Knowing something that has a likelihood of not being true and using that to cause harm to another and then saying ” But I did it, anyway. I’m not sure that I’m sorry.” paints an awful picture that all too likely is accurate.

          2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-one citations (one from the OED and two from the Old Testament) and the source of a quotation, after twenty weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – as I used to tell my students, you cannot be it if you cannot spell it. 😉

        1. Late4dinner,

          I’ve been commenting for most of this year and never had this issue before. Why is it suddenly a problem?

          1. Peter Hill – every so often WordPress goes bonkers and it picks on particular people. No one knows why. There is no rhyme or reason to it.

          2. “I’ve been commenting for most of this year and never had this issue before. Why is it suddenly a problem?” -PH

            Because the site has been modified within the past several months. Be sure to enter your name and email address and check the box to save your info.

            Something else to consider is whether you’re using multiple devices, or different computers.

    4. regular crime is not hateful?

      hate crimes are mostly just crimes that a Democrat wants to write articles about. other crimes are not interesting to them.



    There were more than three dozen unsolved racially motivated bombings in Birmingham during the Civil Rights era — mostly houses and churches. A frequent target was the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, leader of the Birmingham civil right movement.

    And there was a pattern after the attacks. Authorities, including then Birmingham Police Commissioner Bull Connor, would accuse victims of planting the bombs.
    These rumors were widely circulated in white circles says Diane McWhorter, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the Birmingham Civil Rights movement called Carry Me Home.

    “The understood motive was that blacks were bombing their own churches and buildings in order to raise money and get publicity for the movement,” she said.

    She says it was repeated publicly by politicians, including Alabama’s segregationist governor, George Wallace. Other common theories were that the bombings were ordered by Martin Luther King Jr., or were part of a communist plot, or were orchestrated by the FBI.

    “It was repeated so often — I mean I grew up hearing this from my own father — that, you know, I think they started believing it,” she said. “And part of the reason they were able to believe it was that, until the 16th Street Church bombing in September of 1963 when four young girls were murdered, there had been no real fatalities.”

    Even after that deadly Ku Klux Klan attack, police at first zeroed in on the church’s black janitor as a suspect.

    Edited from: “Blaming Victims For Mail Bombs Carries Echoes Of Civil Rights Bombings”

    Todays NPR

    1. PH SAYS:
      PH SAYS:

      I posted that piece from NPR above. But it’s been attributed to Anonymous.


      A post from PH has been attributed to ‘Anonymous’. What’s more Anonymous continues on, debating Paul, having never noticed my post was linked to them.


      1. PH SAYS:
        PH SAYS:

        See??! It happened again. My response above is attributed to Anonymous.

        1. No need to get all worked up, PH. If there’s a glitch of some sort, why don’t you simply type something at the beginning of each comment indicating that it’s yours. You could also check with WordPress. There might be a forum — if there’s some sort of bug.

        2. This is the difference between a conservative and a Liberal. The conservative would fix things or perhaps place his name when posting. He would also read the directions “Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in”

          The Liberal as we see here keeps whining and getting angry at people for not responding to his every need.

          Peter, I think its time you exchanged your nipple for a glass or a straw.

      2. Anyone can post as “Anonymous.” So it’s not a matter of not noticing — it’s a case of not caring because it’s the way that WP works.

        Be sure that your name and email address are entered. And check the box that’s available to save your info.

        1. PH SAYS:

          Darren if that is you above, it reads as Anonymous. But nothing to worry about?

    2. oh, i think some of the terror events of the 60s very well may have been done by bad actors who were sometimes in an informant and provocateur relationship with the fbi. cointelpro? church hearings, exposed a lot of bad things. and CIA had an infamous plan to stage false flags called operation northwoods which was wisely cancelled by Mr Jack Kennedy. not conspiracy theory this, just conspiracy analysis



    In the course of discussion, Kaylene attempted to frame me as a “Nazi brown shirt”. I then reminded Kaylene that German Nazism was a ‘right-wing’ movement. This brought a response from Allan, enforcer of right-wing talking points. Allan boldly asserted that German Nazis were actually a ‘left-wing movement. Here’s an excerpt from what Allan said:

    “But what are the characteristics of fascist Nazism. Firstly take note that fascism itself wasn’t a dirty word in the time of FDR. FDR admired Mousillini’s fascism. Nazism was a centalized state. What other states have been known for such centralization? Stalin’s Russia, Mao Zedong’s China. Think of antifa and see the similarities to the brown shirts and the black shirts. Think of book burning and the similarity to book banning or the political correctness of the left. Think of Eugenics where I think I can accurately say that the Nazi’s used the left’s eugenic programs in America as sort of a blueprint”.

    Allan is correct to say that Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao’s China were highly oppressive states. And that oppression stemmed from leftist radicals. Those states were, in fact, arguably more oppressive than Nazi Germany. But that doesn’t mean the Nazis were ‘left wing’.

    The Nazi base that elected Hitler ‘Chancellor’ in 1933, was largely composed of small town conservatives with old fashioned, nationalistic sentiments. Their quaint sense of patriotism manifested itself into anti-semitism. Had they been a leftist movement, the Nazis would have drawn a certain number of urban Jews as the Bolsheviks in Russia. But that wasn’t the Nazi movement.

    The truth is that Trumpers like Allan seeks to rewrite history; casting contemporary Democrats as closet Nazis; an aggressively stupid effort calculated for aggressively stupid readers.

    1. That’s true, Mr. Hill. What’s more, the simple fact that Allan won’t ever admit that he’s spouting nonsense does not mean that Allan doesn’t already know full well that he is deliberately, intentionally, on purpose spouting nonsense. But why? Allan is anti-anti-Semitic. Or pro-Semitic, more plainly. Allan also practices alter-casting as an image management scheme. Consequently, the enemy of Allan’s enemy can never be Allan’s friend. Huh? What? Allan’s fellow pro-Semites have to be conservative Republicans. Allan cannot ever allow any liberal Democrats to be pro-Semitic, like Allan. Because! Everything is an all or nothing proposition with Allan.

      1. Diane, let us deal with these issues one at a time and get rid of the craizies on both sides. Let’s see if we can’t make sense together.

        Take note: Nazi Germany, a centralized state. Stalin’s Russia, a centralized state. The left of America predominantly moves towards a centralized state. The conservative/ classical liberal moves in the opposite direction.

        Centralization is an important part of National Socialism (Nazi). Tell me how you think the left is further distanced from a centralized state than classical liberalism or conservatism?

        I can’t deal with your other claim of “altercasting” because you wound your argument intothe shape of a pretzel leaving it up to someone else to accurately interpret your words.

    2. Peter Hill – Allan is correct. The Nazis (National Socialists) were both nationalist and socialists. They only gained votes with how poorly Germany was doing economically. When Germany was financially secure they lost votes almost to the point of disappearing. When the loans were called in, the Party grew.

      What did Hitler do once he was in power? He tried to put the “old Germany” back together, which is nationalism. He put in make work programs to get people to work, that is socialism. At a certain point you had to be Aryan to continue to operate in Germany, and then in each of the countries they took (conquered) over. They completely controlled the economy.

      1. The Nazis were a criminal conspiracy to loot, pillage and plunder Europe and beyond. That the Nazis coughed up every last flimsy excuse they could think of for their criminal conspiracy will never mean that the Nazis might as well have been “Commies”, instead. Go read what Hitler and Goebels had to say about communists and socialists. Then go check the numbers of communists and socialists whom the Nazis executed. Allan is an incomparable nincompoop. And everybody knows it.

        1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – if you assume that all governments are criminal conspiracies, then yes, the Nazis were a criminal conspiracy.

          1. It’s not an assumption. It’s a fact. And you know it. The Nazis stole everything they could get their hands on–including stuff that was nailed down. It was their revenge for The Treaty of Versailles and the reparations and the disarmament. Don’t you dare pretend that you’ve never heard the words “we were stabbed in the back” coming out of a Nazi’s mouth.

            Notice: I’m not saying that Putin and the Russian oligarchs are Nazis just because they, too, steal everything they can get their hands on–including stuff that’s nailed down. Do you see the difference, now? Are you even capable of seeing the difference anymore?

            1. L4Yoga/Annie/Inga enables David Benson, and the NPCs R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I have a library near me that is a repository for federal documents. I have read the entire Monuments report from WWII. I am well aware of what the Nazis stole, what we stole and what the Soviets stole. If you have a Federal Repository near you get a copy and read it (only 500 pgs or so).

        2. Diane, let us get back to political theory instead of your name calling. You have been proven wrong a lot over the past day or two where video’s existed to prove you wrong. In the past you were proven wrong regarding police risk by statistics obtained from .gov sites. Over and over you have been proven wrong so the your lack of veracity is not in question.

          An absolute necessity in socialist thinking is centralized government.
          Stalin: Almost complete power to the central government
          The left: Increase power to the central government
          The classical liberal / conservative: Decrease centralized power.

          Try dealing with one issue at a time. The only reason not to deal with the issues is because you are wrong and can’t admit it.

          “Then go check the numbers of communists and socialists whom the Nazis executed.”

          Stalin exiled Trotsky and eventually Trotsky was killed. They were both communists

          1. The Enabling Act of 1933 outlawed The Social Democratic Party of Germany as well as The Communist Party. German Social Democrats were jailed, or executed, or otherwise killed or exiled. Those are empirical observations of historical fact that have nothing whatsoever to do with your, nor any other, definition of “socialism” as “centralized government”. You are literally putting the Nazis and their victims in the same category. And you are doing so for the express purpose of labeling your contemporary political adversaries as “Nazis”. To call that “revisionist history” is an understatement. But a useful understatement, nonetheless. Guess who else practiced revisionist history, you incomparable nincompoop, you?????

            1. Again Diane, you are lying when you say: ” You are literally putting the Nazis and their victims in the same category. And you are doing so for the express purpose of labeling your contemporary political adversaries as “Nazis”. ”

              I separate the categories. I even separate the Stalinists from the Nazi’s. That you have more in common with the Stalinists and Nazi’s than I do is without question. At one point in your history or even your family’s history you may have been known as Stalinists and later taken on the name, the New Left, but that doesn’t change your inherent characteristics nor does it change your reliance on lying.

              1. Allan – you would have to figuratively put them same category. All those people are dead so you cannot literally do it.

        3. L4D:
          “Then go check the numbers of communists and socialists whom the Nazis executed. Allan is an incomparable nincompoop. And everybody knows it.“
          You say the first sentence like it’s a bad thing? (It’s like a fight between the two biggest bullies in town.) And the second is knowledge unique to you which of course belies the last sentence. It’s the shrill Trifecta!

          1. The pettifogging lawyer said, “You say the first sentence like it’s a bad thing? (It’s like a fight between the two biggest bullies in town.)”

            That’s not the issue. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly pettifogging the issue.

            The issue is whether the Nazis were socialists and communists when they killed socialists and communists.

            If Nazis killing socialists and communists is a good thing, and if Nazis were socialists and communists when they killed socialists and communists, then would Mespo, Allan and Paul become Nazis, socialists and communists when Mespo, Allan and Paul killed Nazis, socialists and communists?

            If the answer were yes (which it isn’t, of course, but supposing otherwise), then would it also be good thing for Mespo, Allan and Paul to kill themselves in keeping with Allan’s thesis that Nazis are socialists and communists when they kill socialists and communists taken in conjunction with Mespo’s thesis that it’s good thing for Nazis, socialists and communists to kill one another?

            1. Gibberish mixed with logical fallacies.

              The underlying answer is yes, I can support my enemy’s enemy when he is protecting me from my enemy even though he is my enemy as well.

      2. Absolute Dictators seek to control every facet of the state including its economy. But that doesn’t mean that every Absolute Dictator is ‘leftist’ by nature.

        In the run-up to Nazi takeover, the Brown Shirts brawled with Communists in the streets. Then, once in power, the Nazis quickly went about muzzling every communist. In fact, many leaders of post-war East Germany had been jailed, and, or, persecuted by the Nazis. So obviously the Nazis were NOT a left-wing organization.

        1. Peter Hill – Lenin killed off his opponents, did that make him a rightest?

          1. No, Paul, Lenin was a Leftist radical. Which I’m sure you know. Leftist radicals can be just as brutal as Right-Wing radicals but their politics is different.

            Why the effort to muddy these extremes..??

            1. They think in terms of all-or-nothing propositions. Meanwhile, Allan can’t tell the difference between a definition versus a fact. Allan thinks that definitions are facts. It’s why he puts so much effort into mangling and garbling his definitions of Nazism, socialism, communism and leftist liberalism. Did I mention that they think in terms of all-or-nothing propositions?

              1. Actually Diane though you are likely too confused and too much of an ideologue to understand, I was defining these political terms based on their respective characteristics. That many of the characteristics of Stalin and Hitler are similar is something you cannot run away from. Classical liberalism teaches us another group of characteristics quite different than those promoted by Hitler and Stalin.

                Is your aim to continue littering the blog with gibberish or does your brain permit you to change your habits and intellectually debate these characteristics point by point?

              2. That’s true, Diane.

                Allan is attempting to arbitrarily re-define Nazism for the purpose of advancing right-wing talking points in the Trump era. He doesn’t want ‘right-wing’ sullied by any association with Hitler. Instead he seeks to smear liberals with that link. It seems incredibly stupid on the surface but shockingly evil as well. The scheme is to keep repeating this lie and hope it somehow sticks. That’s the influence of Donald Trump: ‘The truth is now a lie and lies are now the truth’.

                1. “Allan is attempting to arbitrarily re-define Nazism”

                  Peter, how does listing major characteristics of the Nazi’s redefine Nazism. I note you don’t argue against any of those characteristics I mentioned because they existed. You just don’t like being caught with your pants down and others wondering which brain is talking at the moment.

                  “The scheme is to keep repeating this lie”

                  Why don’t you quote the lie? The answer is easy. You are the one lying and you lack the intellectual capability of arguing your case without the use of lies.

        2. Trotsky and Stalin were both communists and Trotsky ended up dead.

          Go back to basics.

          What do socialists want? Centralized government.
          What do conservatives and classical liberals want? Decentralized government.

          What does the left want? Centralized government. When you are able to digest that you can move onto step 2.

          1. From the Wikipedia article on the Social Democractic Party of Germany:

            Despite the agreement of the Second International to oppose World War I, the Social Democrats voted in favor of war in 1914. In response to this and the Bolshevik Revolution, members of the left-wing and of the far-left of the SPD formed alternative parties, first the Spartacus League, then the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD) while the more conservative faction was known as the Majority Social Democratic Party of Germany (MSPD). After 1918, the SPD played an important role in the political system of the Weimar Republic, although it took part in coalition governments only in few years (1918–1921, 1923 and 1928–1930). Adolf Hitler prohibited the party in 1933 under the Enabling Act and party officials were imprisoned, killed or went into exile. In exile, the party used the name Sopade. The Social Democrats had been the only party to vote against the Enabling Act while the Communist Party was blocked from voting.

            1. Repeated for emphasis:

              “The Social Democrats had been the only party to vote against the Enabling Act while the Communist Party was blocked from voting.”

              And yet, Allan preposterously claims that the Nazis were “leftist socialists”. Here’s another repetition for emphasis:

              “Adolf Hitler prohibited the party in 1933 under the Enabling Act and party officials were imprisoned, killed or went into exile.”

              That’s the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Allan. Do you still want most preposterously to claim that the Nazis were “leftist socialists”?????

              1. “And yet, Allan preposterously claims that the Nazis were “leftist socialists”. ”

                It appears that along with an inability to debate in a point by point manner you can’t even copy what was said in a correct fashion. I never claimed that Nazis were “leftist socialists” That is a claim you made. That is a typical type of lie that you make throughout this blog changing words and meanings of what was said so your canned reply will make sense.

                You do not make sense when you distort the words of others. That is why most of your comments on this blog are inherently untrue and why one can only consider your writings to be writings that belong in a garbage pail.

                If you wish to make a claim about what I said do so, but quote my words. Don’t make them up.

            2. Diane we are not talking about the history of the respective individuals and parties rather their characteristics that make them act the way they do. That you keep quoting off target history from Wikipedia as your primary evidence demonstrates that you are incapable of debating facts one by one and need to muddle the discussion with a lot of things that have little or nothing to do with the matters at hand.

              1. Allan – what Diane is doing is called the Gish Gallop. Not to be confused with the non-Gish Gallop as defined by Benson.

                1. Paul, you too..??

                  You’re really on board with this Holocaust denial..??

                  That’s what Allan and Tabby are attempting; it’s essentially a form of Holocaust Denial. They are attempting to redefine Nazis as something they never were. This brazen attempt at revisionist history is a symptom of the Trump era.

                  1. ” Holocaust denial..??”

                    Don’t act like a pig. You walk over the dead trying to push your ideology forward and prove yourself right despite the fact you don’t know what you are talking about. You have absolutely no shame.

                  2. Peter Hill – no one is denying the Holocaust, I have already spoken to that several times. However, the Nazis were Socialists. Full stop.

    3. The Nazi base that elected Hitler ‘Chancellor’ in 1933, was largely composed of small town conservatives with old fashioned, nationalistic sentiments.

      The conservative vote in Germany accounted for about 19% of the German electorate during the Wilhelmine period, falling to 15% during the 1st decade of the Weimar Republic. It didn’t disappear entirely after 1928, but was much reduced, accounting for about 7.5% of the electorate. The Nazi Party was drawing about 35% of the vote during the period running from 1930 to 1933. No more than 1/3 of the could have been a residue of conservative voters, if that. The signature issue of the National People’s Party under Weimar was restoration of the monarchies. Conservative voters qua conservative voters got little out of Hitler other than suppression of the Communist Party and its trade union affiliates.

      The Whig liberal parties accounted for about 18% of the electorate during the Wilhelmine period and 12% during Weimar. They largely disappeared after 1928. You’re not seriously suggesting the Hitler regime was a fulfillment of the liberal parties programmes?

      1. PH SAYS:
        PH SAYS:

        Quoting Tabby: “Conservative voters qua conservative voters got little out of Hitler other than suppression of the Communist Party and its trade union affiliates”.

        Fear of communists and trade unions are major motivators for conservative Germans of that era. Fear of Stalin and communists paved Hitler’s rise. Had there been no Stalin, Hitler would have remained a ‘right-wing radical’. But Germany in the 1920’s was teaming with communist agitators. Hitler seemed like the one leader to handle that threat.

        Let’s see if the post is attributed to Anonymous.

        1. You keep talking out of your ass.

          The abrupt increase in Nazi electoral support was coincident with a catastrophic banking crisis (atop the wreckage left from a spate of stupefying inflation seven years earlier). The crisis was challenging to governments with passably structured institutions (Germany’s weren’t) and challenging to governments which were not coping with latent revanchist sentiment (which Germany’s was). It managed to discredit the political class from stem to stern in Germany. The Nazis, the Communists, and the National People’s Party were the parties not implicated in the policy failures of the previous dozen years. The National People’s Party was under decidedly uninspired leadership and imploded while the Communist Party had a natural ceiling. Over 85% of the redistribution of voter preferences (net) was corralled by the Nazis. The Communists cadged an additional 4% of the electorate.

          And, again, you’re numbers don’t work. If you’re going to set up shop as a serial libel artist, you could at least be a numerate libel artist.

          1. Tabby,

            I have long been wise to your highly-labored bluffs. You pull this all the time; some convoluted answer intended to sound as though it was written by a serious, wonky expert. But usually these responses are just jumbled nonsense with snippy little insults.

            You and Allan are using Professor Turley’s thread to promote revisionist history. This idea that Nazi Germany was actually a ‘liberal state’ contradicts every book written on Hitler since 1945. We never heard this narrative until quite recently. Not until the Trump era has this nonsense been pushed.

            It’s basically an effort to shoe-horn right-wing talking points into revisionist history. By repeating this lie, over and over, Trumpers hope to make it stick; this idea that Democrats are philosophically linked to Nazi Germany. As recently as 2 years ago, no American conservative would have attempted such a lie.

            American conservatives have for decades portrayed Democrats as ‘soft on communism’. That’s why LBJ pursued Vietnam; he didn’t want to seem ‘soft on communism’. But Republicans of the cold-war era never, ever compared Democrats to Nazis. Again these comparisons began only recently. And they reflect the Trump era; a period when the truth is whatever Trump says.

            It’s a frightening development: ‘Lies are now the ‘truth’ and the truth is now a ‘lie’.

            1. “You and Allan are using Professor Turley’s thread to promote revisionist history.”

              You don’t know your history and that is why you accuse others of promoting revisionist history. You were taken in by those on the left that are rapidly destroying the Democratic Party. You swallowed their identity politics and violence against non conformers so that you no longer can even read the truth.

              No one called the Nazi regime a liberal regime. You don’t even seem to know what the words mean. What has been said is that National Socialism (Nazi) is closer to socialism than what is known as classical liberalism. Liberalism as promoted by Progressives is nothing like the classical liberalism of our forefathers. That is why when writing about a Progressive Liberal a capital L is used in Liberal to distinguish it from liberalism (classical liberalism).

              I have been careful to distinguish the different terms from one another based on context. The Democrat of today is nothing like the Democrat of JFK’s day. Democrats are not Nazi’s but the philosophy of the radical left that has been adopted and in some cases supported by todays Democrats is more closely aligned with Nazi principles than with classical liberal principles. One of many of my examples is centralization of government vs decentralization. Stalin and Hitler were both supporters of strong centralization. Our federalism was created to prevent such centralization. It is the left that accuses those on the so-called right of being Nazi’s when most desire decentralized government.

              The idea of centralization vs decentralization is not only two years old as you suggest. It has existed throughout man’s history.

            2. You haven’t successfully disputed a single factual point. Go away.

              1. Tabby, you haven’t made any factual points.

                You are deceitful, bogus intellectual posing as a wonk. And I first suspected this many months ago.

                There seems to be a formula to your comments where you craft them to read as deliberately boring. Boring for the purpose of sounding arcane. As though some research specialist had written them for a generic think tank.

                It’s a cynical, labored trick to make the reader think they aren’t smart enough to comprehend what you’re saying. But you’ve overplayed this bluff way too many times! Therefore it’s now a very lame joke.

                1. Tabby, you haven’t made any factual points.

                  I see your reading comprehension has sunk to zero.

        2. Hitler had competition and wiped his competition out. That didn’t mean that they differed all that much. It means Hitler wanted to be the leader and some others the fall guys.

          Both Hitler and the communists wanted centralized government. Those that like their freedoms preserved prefer decentralized governments. The Progressives supported the eugenics movement and Hitler took that to heart. The left of today is all for PC and book banning. That is just one step away from the Nazi book burnings. Nazi, dictatorship, socialism/ communism on one side classical liberalism on the other.

          The left in the US has a terrible history of racism. What was the first movie shown in the White House? Hint: under a Democratic President. The Clansman AKA The Birth of a Nation. The Democratic President thought it was great.

          1. All lies, Allan! ‘Who’ are you shilling for??

            That’s the irony, with you, Allan. You call me ‘Peter Shill’ to discredit my comments. But I am becoming seriously convinced that ‘you’ are, in fact, the shill. An official troll, perhaps, for some right-wing organization.

            This idea that Democrats are somehow linked to Nazis is like saying “I Love Lucy” was really a dramatic series about a wise and thoughtful woman. Just a shamelessly stupid lie that anyone can debunk. But in the Trump era, these lies now pass as truth.

            1. Excellent work, PH.

              The more nonsense Allan posts, the fewer readers agree with Allan’s nonsense.

              (Don’t tell him. Make him figure it out for himself.)

              1. In other words Diane you believe neither Stalin nor Hitler desired a centralized government. All the questions asked of Peter can be asked of you but you have the same problem as Peter. You were duped though probably to a greater degree than Peter.

                I await a point by point rebuttal of my points. When doing so please try and make sense leaving out your typical gibberish.

            2. “All lies, Allan! ‘Who’ are you shilling for??”

              If you think that way Peter, why don’t you quote each of my comments and rebut them as best as you can.

              Was this statement of mine wrong? “Hitler had competition and wiped his competition out. That didn’t mean that they differed all that much. It means Hitler wanted to be the leader and some others the fall guys.”

              No, Peter, you didn’t rebut that statement. It was even a bit simplistic but still despite its simplistic nature you couldn’t rebut it. You don’t know history.

              “Both Hitler and the communists wanted centralized government.” How about this statement of mine? Are you going to tell us that either Hitler or Stalin or both didn’t want centralized government? You didn’t do that. All you did was call a truthful statement a lie.

              How about my statement: “The Progressives supported the eugenics movement and Hitler took that to heart.” Are you going to tell us the Progressives didn’t support the eugenics movement or do you wish to tell us that HItler was against the use of eugenics? On and on you go stating known facts are lies but unable to say it because when broken down fact by fact you recognize the awful truth. You have been duped.

              Again, no one is calling Democrats Nazi’s though Democrats are calling Republicans Nazi’s (a few might be Nazi’s but no true Republican is interested in them. Some of these so called Nazi’s actually support programs of the left like national health insurance so their thinking is actually leftist with a bit of racism attached.) Democratic reliance on leftist principles pushes them in a direction. Those leftist principles frequently represent the principles of Lenin and Stalin which do have similarities to the principles of the Nazi party.

            3. the problem is that the mass media is calling trump a nazi and holding him responsible for crimes. which is preposterous. so no positive dialogue can be held under such situations and people resort to counter-propaganda. i don’t consider Democrats anything like nazis but to be fair niether are American Republicans and to say so is equally false.

              but today is today so there is little sane discussion to be had

              1. Thank you, Kurtz.

                Republicans have been conservative for decades. But until the Trump era, no intelligent liberal seriously compared them to Nazis.

                But Trump has put this country on a completely different path. The truth is now whatever a media source can claim. And it’s going to cut both ways. Now that facts are political it’s open season on the truth. We might never get back agreed upon facts.

                THIS IS VERY DISTURBING!!

                1. ” But until the Trump era, no intelligent liberal seriously compared them to Nazis.”

                  You have medium to long term memory loss. GWB was likened to Hitler numerous times and such linkage of Republican connections to Nazi’s goes back decades. Just look at all the left wing sites some of which you probably read today that showed GWB as a Nazi.

                  I’ll bet if you were posting at that time we could link you in some fashion to a GWB picture that insinuated GWB was a Nazi. Even Tom Lantos (Democratic Congressman), who I have some fondness for compared Republicans to Nazi’s and he died in 2008.

                2. no intelligent liberal seriously compared them to Nazis.

                  It’s not the fault of Republicans that Democrats are less intelligent than they used to be.

    4. it’s incorrect to cast Democrats as Nazis. I don’t get that.

      both Republicans and Democrats in the USA are basically liberals.

      Nazis were anti-liberal.

      they were however definitely socialist.

      liberalism as the political ideology of capitalism, won out as against both the left and right versions of socialism. the left version was organized around class conflict and the right version was organized around nationalist conflict.

      that’s a more useful way of seeing it, perhaps?

      of course it’s part of the flexibility of capitalism that it can integrate features of soclalism like health and welfare regulations and programs, to make itself stronger; likewise it does not justify itself strictly upon individualism, even if that is theoretically the basis; but it also appeals to class conflict and nationalist concerns as well

      hence, capitalism is the world-winner when it comes to systems, obviously

      1. “it’s incorrect to cast Democrats as Nazis. I don’t get that.”

        Kurtz just so you know, it is very difficult for the lips of Peter and Diane to speak the truth. Nowhere did I cast Democrats as Nazi’s but the only way for Peter and Diane to create even a slightly logical argument is to lie about what others say. That is why they seldom use quotes when they make comments of aspersions.

        “both Republicans and Democrats in the USA are basically liberals.”

        Without a definition of your use of the word “liberals” I don’t know that I can agree with you.

        “hence, capitalism is the world-winner when it comes to systems, obviously”

        I think property rights would precede capitalism as a winner and augment a better understanding.

  10. We keep hearing from the left about white men and whiteness, but it seems that white isn’t the only color leftist organizations like to keep out. Identity politics is big with the left.

    Identity Politics in Overdrive

    From the Kavanaugh hearings to a lawsuit alleging that Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans, the Left sees “white supremacy” at the heart of everything.

    Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and the author of The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.

    The current lawsuit challenging Harvard University’s use of racial preferences in admissions is about “white supremacy,” according to the school’s supporters. So, too, was the defense of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh against the charge of sexual assault, according to Kavanaugh’s critics. Never mind that the plaintiffs in the Harvard lawsuit are Asian-American students who were denied admission to the school despite academic qualifications superior to those of whites, and that Kavanaugh’s accuser was white herself. The roiling mass of resentments and one-upmanship that is identity politics is becoming ever more irrational in the Trump era. Whether a crack-up is imminent remains to be seen.

    Harvard caps the number of Asians it admits, allege the plaintiffs—a coalition of Asian-American groups called Students for Fair Admissions—in the lawsuit against the university. As a result, Asian applicants must present higher academic qualifications than any other racial or ethnic group in order to be considered for admission. According to Harvard’s own data, test scores and a high school GPA that would give an Asian-American high school senior only a 25 percent chance of admission would provide a virtual admissions guarantee—95 percent—for an otherwise identical black applicant, a 77 percent chance of admission for a Hispanic student, and a 36 percent chance of admission for a white student. Asians would make up more than 50 percent of the admitted class if Harvard were colorblind, estimates Students for Fair Admissions, instead of the 18.6 percent Asian average maintained over recent years. The white student population would go down from 43 percent to 38 percent. Asians account for 6 percent of the national population; whites, 61 percent.

    Continued at: https://www.city-journal.org/kavanaugh-identity-politics-harvard-asian-american?utm_source=City+Journal+Update&utm_campaign=5b41aade2d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_26_08_51&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c08930f2b-5b41aade2d-109320877

    1. Like HummingbirdCentral on Facebook
      Many hummingbirds spend the winter in Central America or Mexico, and migrate north to their breeding grounds in the southern U.S. and western states as early as February, and to areas further north later in the spring. The first arrivals in spring are usually males.

      Some, however, do not migrate, in areas like California and the upper Pacific coast.

      The Migration Triggers

      Although there are differing views in the birding community as to what triggers the start of migration, it is generally thought that hummingbirds sense changes in daylight duration, and changes in the abundance of flowers, nectar and insects. Instinct also plays a role in making the decision to migrate.

      Making the Trip

      Hummingbird feeding mania near Tyler Texas
      During migration, a hummingbird’s heart beats up to 1,260 times a minute, and its wings flap 15 to 80 times a second. To support this high energy level, a hummingbird will typically gain 25-40% of their body weight before they start migration in order to make the long trek over land, and water.

      They fly alone, often on the same path they have flown earlier in their life, and fly low, just above tree tops or water. Young hummingbirds must navigate without parental guidance.

      Hummingbirds fly by day when nectar sources such as flowers are more abundant. Flying low allows the birds to see, and stop at, food supplies along the way. They are also experts at using tail winds to help reach their destination faster and by consuming less energy and body fat. Research indicates a hummingbird can travel as much as 23 miles in one day.

      Map of Breeding Ranges of Dominant Hummingbird Species in North America

      The map below shows the approximate breeding ranges of four major hummingbird species in North America: Rufous, Anna’s Black-chinned and Ruby-throated. Of course actual breeding areas vary by year depending on weather-related conditions and other environmental factors.

    2. Identity politics is big with the left.

      That statement is itself an example of identity politics (IP). Who doesn’t use IP? The worst stage of IP is when the electorate votes political party first. And that’s where we are. If you just pay attention to what politicians are selling you quickly realize what the voters are buying; that other party is evil, our party is good. They’re Nazi’s, we’re not. One sure way to screw up an election today would be to remove any party identifier on the ballot. Imagine the head-scratching as the voter looks at the ballot and has no idea which candidate is his/her political party.

      1. Olly, take note how much our resident leftist, Diane, writes but how little she writes about her principles. That is because she will use any means to get to her ends.

        All too many people have absolutely no idea who they are voting for or why. That is one of the reasons for federalism because local politics affects the individual and therefore the individual will be more educated when going to the polls. However, if the federal government is too involved in local affairs the voting process becomes more about identity politics than about the issues.

        Recently involving a state election an intelligent friend was casting a vote for a person that advocated everything that voter didn’t want. That voter knew nothing about the other candidate except that candidate wasn’t acceptable to the party the voter identified with. That voter didn’t want to know anything else.

        1. Allan,
          To be honest, I stopped paying much attention to our resident Sybil a long time ago. Once she argued against natural rights and vehemently argued that all rights come from government, that was the moment I realized her political opinions would always be twisted like a pretzel to appear reasonable. Unless she has had a change of mind and acknowledges there are at least some rights that preexist government, then unwinding her twisted logic will always end up in the same place…bat-sh!t crazy.

          1. Olly, though I can’t possibly know for sure, based on what Diane writes and how she writes, she sounds to me a bit like a Stalinist or perhaps the daughter of a pair who then joined the New Left. The vehemence of her argument “all rights come from government” would support that contention.

            1. The vehemence of her argument “all rights come from government” would support that contention.

              Whatever identity can be attributed to her based on what she posts, it is important to know it’s not rooted in the first principles of our founding.

              1. I think you can easily label her as a dogmatic leftist. She definitely has beliefs that incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

                Her verbiage reminds me of those I know or knew from the extreme left which includes Stalinists.

                1. She definitely has beliefs that incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

                  If we are going to identify people politically (and we are), then that is the only identity that matters. I’ll go so far as to remove the constitution out of the equation. Either you’re under the DoI tent or you are not. Either you believe in the self-evident truths or you do not. If you do not, then there is no common ends and the constitution has no perceived teeth. If you do, then the ends are common and the constitution is held as the only legitimate means to get there.

                  1. The Constitution was signed by all the member states at a later time than the DOI which I strongly support. We are a Constitutional Republic.

                    What Diane’s rhetoric leads to is some type of autocracy and her talking points for the most part are very leftist. In addition the way her rhetoric is written points to a Stalinist way of thinking.

                    Under our Constitution many ideas are open and the Constitution itself is open to change even if that moves us in a leftist direction. Though natural rights are foremost in our minds one needs a country to secure those rights and no country is perfect.

                    1. The Constitution was signed by all the member states at a later time than the DOI which I strongly support.

                      Well it certainly couldn’t have been at an earlier time. They are inextricably linked; one created after the other. The constitution is the means to accomplish the DoI ends.

                      What Diane’s rhetoric leads to is…

                      an all-powerful government capable of doing anything imagined by an ignorant, apathetic and dependent majority of voters.

                      Though natural rights are foremost in our minds one needs a country to secure those rights and no country is perfect.

                      I don’t believe natural rights are foremost in most people’s minds until they are infringed. I’ll bet if you grabbed 100 people off the street to ask them what natural rights are, you’d get a solid mix of positive rights, natural rights and privileges.

                    2. “Well it certainly couldn’t have been at an earlier time. They are inextricably linked; one created after the other. The constitution is the means to accomplish the DoI ends.”

                      Though I might agree with that sentiment, nowhere in the Constitution does it actually say it in those terms.

                      In terms of the American mind, did you ever consider the mindset of the total population during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War or World War 2?

                    3. Though I might agree with that sentiment, nowhere in the Constitution does it actually say it in those terms.

                      Might? Interesting. nowhere in the constitution… Yeah, this is why telling people to read it without also reading and understanding the DoI along with other documents leading to its ratification like the Federalist Papers is a recipe for exactly what we have today.

                      Hamilton argued in Federalist 84 that a Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary. And why did he make that point? Because although the proposed constitution didn’t say it was written to secure those rights identified in the proposed Bill of Rights, the sentiment was the proposed constitution did not provide government the power to infringe those rights in the first place. Well despite that sentiment, and despite the actual limits in the constitution, our government has proven to be the tyrants the anti-federalists feared. Oh those sentimental anti-federalists.

                    4. Allan,
                      Check out this article.

                      Unattainable, and gone forever, is the whole American Republic that had existed for some 200 years after 1776. The people and the habits of heart and mind that had made it possible are no longer a majority. Progressives made America a different nation by rejecting those habits and those traditions. As of today, they would use all their powers to prevent others from living in the manner of the Republic. But, perhaps, after their offensive resistance’s failure, they might be reconciled to govern themselves as they wish in states where they command a majority, while not interfering with other Americans governing themselves in their way in the states where they are a majority.

                    5. “Unattainable, and gone forever, is the whole American Republic that had existed for some 200 years after 1776”

                      One can say that about almost every generation. Yes, the Progressive movement has moved the nation in the wrong direction. That is what happens with time. Things eventualy degrade. Entropy. That is the nature of life and our personal time while we are alive, entropy. That is the nature even of our computer circuits, entropy.

                      What you are looking for is to change the natural order of things.

                    6. What you are looking for is to change the natural order of things.

                      You say that like it’s a bad thing.

                    7. “You say that like it’s a bad thing.”

                      You can try and make believe gravity doesn’t exist. Some might not think that a bad thing but unfortunately things of that nature are beyond your reach.

                    8. Olly I have been thinking of your ideas regarding the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

                      Maybe it would be better if you looked at things in this fashion. The Declaration of Independence was a fancy break up letter. Instead of Dear John it was Dear George.

                      The Constitution was Faust’s deal with the devil.

                    9. Better for who, you, L4D? There are a lot of things I don’t understand and this is not one of them. So no, it wouldn’t be better.

                    10. Olly, What do you think the DOI said?

                      “dissolve the political bands”

                      Then it provided a philosophy to live by (natural rights+) and then a list of complaints and then the dissolution of the relationship.

                    11. Olly, What do you think the DOI said?

                      Understanding the backstory leading to it is essential to understanding the impact of the document itself. So to know the purpose of the Declaration of Independence we must understand who it was written for and why.

                      First and foremost there were still many Americans that believed for various reasons that despite the many negatives of the relationship with the King and parliament, the American colonies were far more secure within the British Empire and to oppose them would mean going up against a military force considered second to none. The consequences of opposing Britain obviously meant disloyalty to the crown. The King would be forced to treat all those that openly opposed his authority as traitors which many colonists hadn’t yet been willing to accept.

                      So the declaration set out to educate many Americans on the principles of government they had come to believe during the Age of Enlightenment. The understanding of inalienable rights and the purpose of government was a necessary foundation to be laid as they proceeded to identify the various ways they have been ignored. The declaration was also intended to present to the world that the American colonists had the rights; the moral authority and duty to stand up against the tyranny of the oppressive British rule; that governments in any form were institutions of the people and therefore the people’s right to change them as necessary to protect their God-given rights. And finally, by demonstrating the legitimacy of their actions in this cause, the Americans sought Allies in their war with Britain for the purpose of war finance as well as military support; both would certainly be needed if they were to be successful.

                      The Declaration of Independence is essentially a four-part document. The introductory paragraph provides the reader with an explanation of where the authority to declare this independence comes from and that reasonable people have an obligation to exercise that authority. The second section begins to explain how the relationship between government and its people should function. It further demonstrates how that relationship may breakdown and that the people not only have the right to change it but an enormous responsibility to determine when that right should be exercised. The third section details specifically the various reasons the Americans argue justify their independence from Great Britain and the fourth section leaves no doubt who supports this declaration and to what end they are committed.

                    12. Not all the citizens of the 13 colonies wanted revolution and not all the members of Parliament agreed with the King. Even many of the revolutionaries were loyal to Britain and fought for her. The American Grievances were real but so were many of British replies and grievances as well.

                      Our forefathers were brilliant in the manner they wrote the Declaration of Independence and in how they included our natural rights from our creator. If man gives rights to other men man can take that right away. Man cannot take away rights given by God.

                      It is a document I dearly respect and love, but in the end in order “to form a more perfect union” the States signed onto an imperfect agreement that pledged their loyalty to things some of the signers didn’t even agree with. It is that document, The Constitution, that sets up the legal framework for our federal government.

                    13. Allan – it is generally thought that roughly 1/3 were Rebels, 1/3 were Tories and 1/3 stuck their head in the sand. Those are general guesstimates.

                    14. This article provides a very good breakdown of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. IMO, it also does a very good job reflecting its continuing relationship with the constitution.

                      The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “First comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) the protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights—or its systematic violation of rights—can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.

                    15. Olly, we don’t substantially disagree on the merits of the Declaration of Independence.

                    16. I think there were, of several score attending in July 1776, about five delegates to the Continental Congress in 1776 who refused to sign the Declaration. I’ll wager you that public opinion on independence was not equally divided.

                    17. Though all the representatives didn’t sign all the states eventually did. I wouldn’t take that wager regarding what the population thought.

                    18. DSS – there were a few items in the original draft that were left out of the final version of the DoI.

    3. All politics are identity politics. The right says they don’t like identity politics, but won’t acknowledge the fact that politics and identity are inherently linked.

      It is not our identities that divide us. It is more the inability to accept, recognize, and celebrate our differences that causes social division.

      1. MAM if what you say is true how do you explain the fact that the so called right supported Clarence Thomas for justice of the Supreme Court?

        Don’t you think it was his Constitutional beliefs?

      2. politics is the business of the city; the identity is shared by citizens, those inside the group and how they control and direct it.

        politics causes the emergence of a sovereign, who exercises the brute force of violence as a legitimate head of state according to laws, which are, the rules by which force will be used.

        politics thus always entails the question both of group identity and also violence.

        von Klausewitz said, war is the extension of politics by other means, or something like that; but war definitely happens in a political context, both how it is directed from home and how the force is projected abroad. and when the war is a civil war, then it is always more inherently political


        that is Carl Schmitt. Certainly fair to call him a nazi, but an important political theorist.

        the work of Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld owes much to Schmitt, but I am not sure he credits him sufficiently


  11. “…half-Filipino and half-Italian…” – Newsweek (His father is Filipino and his mother Italian.)

    Addressing questions downthread –



    The cousin claimed that Sayoc had big dreams of becoming a pro wrestler, but that after doing too many steroids, his life went south.

    “The kid was huge,” the cousin said. “He wanted to make it as a pro wrestler, but the steroids f***ed his head up.”

    The cousin said Sayoc adopted the Italian surname “Altieri,” because while he was half-Filipino and half-Italian, he leaned toward his late grandfather’s roots on his mother’s side.

    Three years ago, the cousin said, Sayoc fell out of favor with the family. -Newsweek

Comments are closed.