President Obama’s Young Dreamers Arrive!

WASHINGTON — Militants for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have traveled to Mexico and are just miles from the United States. They plan to cross over the porous border and will “imminently” launch car bomb attacks. And the threat is so real that federal law enforcement officers have been placed at a heightened state of alert, and an American military base near the border has increased its security.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to President Obama’s Young Dreamers Arrive!

  1. Marc says:

    Wow; that’s the mother of all misleading quotes! Not exactly great for your credibility…

  2. Psalmon says:

    The US does not have Open borders. The US has Opened borders.

    There’s a difference.

  3. But this comes from the New York Times, which must be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy against Obama.

    • Gail Combs says:

      HA HA HA….
      Great one.
      The New York Times, home of KGB agent Walter Durant and who knows how many others. The KGB liked to use journalists. Most of their spies were journalists since they could easily go places and ask questions per ), Alexander Vassiliev and the KGB archives .

  4. bobmaginnis says:

    Fallout from the neocons’ ‘regime change’ chaos:
    “The group’s core ideas are expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The Sunday Herald referred to the report as a “blueprint for U.S. world domination.”

    • Gail Combs says:

      You really are full of it Bob. The Secure Fence Act was enacted in 2006 UNDER BOOOOSH!

      Look at the data I collected. This False Flag event has Obama’s and Janet Napolitano’s hand prints all over it.

      Per Bush the USA was SUPPOSED to get a WALL but Janet Napolitano CANCELED IT and to add insult to injury moved border guards FROM Mexico TO Canada while Obama moved border state National Guard unites to Afghanistan.

      A few of the headlines:
      October 2008 — Mexican Government Threatens Minutemen Over Civilian Border Patrols

      September 24, 2009 — Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border

      February 21, 2010 -Radical Islam makes inroads among Latin America’s Native peoples

      March 17, 2010 – Ms. Napolitano attempts to justify to lawmakers a 30 percent budget reduction for U.S. Customs and Border Protection…

      January 6, 2011 — Local Officials: Border Crime On The Rise

      Three of the four border states are losing their National Guard troops
      January 03, 2011 – Are Legalized Civilian Militia Groups the Answer to Arizona’s Border Security Problems?

      January 14, 2011 — Napolitano Cancels Virtual Border Fence Project..

      • bobmaginnis says:

        Gail, I was referring to US meddling and bombing in the Mideast, which has helped create ISIS etc., who now want to harm our USA. We were better off with secular dictators in Syria and Iraq than the chaos there now. Life is now much worse especially for women there.
        The Islamists don’t hate us for what we are, but for what we do to them. Expect some blowback, and then more Patriot Act police state loss of liberty, thanks to PNAC.

        • They hate us because we help Israel. They hate Israel because David slew Goliath.

        • mjc says:

          Actually, that’s not quite true…because it’s quite probable had we not gone back to Iraq over 10 yrs ago, Saddam would have been ousted by the very same radicals that are currently causing problems and we’d be in the same boat. After all he would have been in power for over 30 yrs by now and 25-30+ yrs is a long time for a dictator like Saddam.

          Hindsight and speculation really get us nowhere, though, because we’ve got a mess on our hands NOW and should have been/could have been aren’t going to change that.

          That entire area has been one relatively nonstop conflict for the past 2000 yrs.

          And yes, the Islamists do hate us for what we ARE…won’t get into all the reasons for that, because this isn’t really the venue for it, but the whole idea that Islam is about peace, love and tolerance is pure, unadulterated BS.

        • The Islamists don’t hate us for what we are …

          Bob speaks. Hilarity ensues.

        • Gail Combs says:


          You are missing the point. The elite set up wars to kill off young men who could challenge them. Cull the population and to siphon off wealth from the peasants.

          The elite set-up these wars via false flags. Obama and Janet Napolitano helped in the set up of this next false flag.

          The war after this one will probably be USA vs China. That game has already been set in motion by Clinton.

          Is it just the Progressives? Of course not. We have been played for the last hundred years and 97% of our politicians have been in on the scam. link

          That is why I am a very cynical Independent.

        • Andy DC says:

          I agree, all the so called evil dictators that have fallen in Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Eygpt, etc. were far better that what has followed. At least they has some semblence of control over their own countries.

        • rah says:

          “The Islamists don’t hate us for what we are, but for what we do to them.”

          No bigger piece of excrement has ever been written. Perhaps you should go over and talk to ISIS and try and make amends!

          Exactly what have the Iraqi Christians and Christians all over the Islamic world from Pakistan to Lebanon done to them to deserve being murdered and having their property stolen from them?

          Exactly what did the US embassy personnel in Lebanon do to them and then the Marines at Beirut International afterward?

        • Mat Helm says:

          Islam has been hating on us white folk since the medieval times. Done their best to take Europe in the 8th century…

    • Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby

      Bob, how could you forget Reagan? If he did not make a mess by dismantling the Soviet Union the KGB would have taken care of things.

        • Bob, you have avoided the subject and tried to change it. I expected it that. This one time only, I will go along with your evasion:

          The totalitarian and murderous Soviet Union was a key ally of the United States during WWII. During the same time the Soviet Union did—among other things—wage a war of aggression against small Finland.

          Do real world facts enter your thinking when you make posts like this?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Kennedy and Johnson gave us ‘Nam. In officer’s training my ex said there were Israelis on one side of the room and Arabs on the other. SO this crap goes WAY back to the Vietnam war and before.

          Actually it goes back to the 1930s and before.

          Why the Intervention in Arabia?

          …The Rockefeller interest and other Western Big Oil companies have had intimate ties with the absolute royalties of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia ever since the 1930s. During that decade and World War II, King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia granted a monopoly concession on all oil under his domain to the Rockefeller-control-led Aramco, while the $30 million in royalty payments for the concession was paid by the U.S. taxpayer.

          The Rockefeller-influenced U.S. Export-Import Bank obligingly paid another $25 million to Ibn Saud to construct a pleasure railroad from his main palace, and President Roosevelt made a secret appropriation out of war funds of $165 million to Aramco for pipeline construction across Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the U.S. Army was obligingly assigned to build an airfield and military base at Dhahran, near the Aramco Oilfields, after which the multi-million dollar base was turned over, gratis, to Ibn Saud.

          It is true that Aramco was gradually “nationalized” by the Saudi monarchy during the 1970s, but that amounts merely to a shift in the terms of this cozy partnership: over half of Saudi oil is still turned over to the old Aramco consortium as management corporation for sale to the outside world. Plus Rockefeller’s Mobil Oil, in addition to being a key part of Aramco, is engaged in two huge joint ventures with the Saudi government: an oil refinery and a petrochemical complex costing more than $1 billion each….

          Makes you wonder if this is all about protecting the Rockefeller’s interests now doesn’t it?

        • … my ex said there were Israelis on one side of the room and Arabs on the other.

          I don’t get what you’re saying there.

          Makes you wonder if this is all about protecting the Rockefeller’s interests now doesn’t it?

          No, it doesn’t, Gail. We shouldn’t yield to Marx’s absurd reductionism even when a specific proposition sounds attractive. It’s a devil’s bargain and a roadblock to understanding.

          Just look what it did to some posters on this blog …

        • Gail Combs says:

          … my ex said there were Israelis on one side of the room and Arabs on the other.

          Colorado says, I don’t get what you’re saying there.
          What I am saying is back in the 60’s and early 70’s (You know when KENNEDY and JOHNSON -the democrats were in power) US Army Military bases were TRAINING ARABS so it wasn’t just ‘republicans’ as Bob is trying to make out.

          Makes you wonder if this is all about protecting the Rockefeller’s interests now doesn’t it?

          Colorado says, No, it doesn’t, Gail. We shouldn’t yield to Marx’s absurd….
          I hate to tell you Colorado but that excerpt was from the Mises Institute and written by Murray Rothbard. I can’t think of anything further from Marx except for Ayn Rand.

          David Rockefeller is a Globalist and he and his buddies have been the hand behind the scenes for a long long time. After the ‘official’ IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington Rockefeller held a second meeting at Rockefeller’s estate in Westchester….
          link (Read to the bottom of the page.)

        • ”… my ex said there were Israelis on one side of the room and Arabs on the other.

          … it wasn’t just ‘republicans’ as Bob is trying to make out.”

          Got it—I thought you were bringing up some additional context. Yes, we were training the Arabs—the ones that were not being trained by the Soviets.

          Makes you wonder …

          I did not suggest the Austrian School or you are Marxist. That would be absurd. I just get rubbed wrong by statements like

          ”… if this is all about protecting the Rockefeller’s interests …”

          Economic interests always matter in wars and our current political class demonstrates regularly it cannot be trusted. We agree but economic interests are not the only reason for wars. Marx says there are no other reasons. That’s all.

          ”Just look what it did to some posters on this blog …”

          Not you, if that wasn’t clear.

        • Gamecock says:

          “The totalitarian and murderous Soviet Union was a key ally of the United States during WWII.” CW September 16, 2014 at 5:44 pm

          That’s just funny. WWII was between Germany and the Soviet Union. We were an ally to the Soviet Union, not the other way around. And a “key” ally?

        • I’m not sure what the quarrel is, Gamecock. What we call WWII today had many participants *).

          Are you advancing a concept of being allies in one direction but not reciprocally (beyond the obvious differences in interests and mutual importance)? Also, did “key ally” rub you the wrong way? OK, we can use Churchill’s term “Grand Alliance”. Which part is funny?

          My point was simple: The United States allied itself with different parties in its history, based on the protection of its interests at the time. Some of those alliances were more durable because of the durability of the interests on both sides. Others were opportunistic and did not last for obvious reasons. Our WWII alliance with the Soviet Union ended in 1945. Typically, when we win a war, our ally in that war is also strengthened—even if it turns out to be against our interests in the future.

        • philjourdan says:


          The United States allied itself with different parties in its history, based on the protection of its interests at the time.

          One thing that many around here are tired of me saying is that nations do not have friends, just common interests.

          Some of those alliances were more durable because of the durability of the interests on both sides.

          Exactly! That is why alliances like Israel have lasted so long.

          Others were opportunistic and did not last for obvious reasons.

          Or the country changed. China, WWII and Post WWII – Mao.

        • Or the country changed. China, WWII and Post WWII.

          A great example. The Doolittle Raiders had to make it over occupied coastal China to the free hinterland after their 1942 raid on Japan. They knew they could return to the United States from free China.

          On the other hand, the Soviet Union—which was already at war with Germany—-had a neutrality pact with Japan. Capt. York’s B-25 could not make it to free China and landed in Vladivostok. The Soviets confiscated the plane and interned the crew (they managed to escape later).

          So in 1942 in our war with Japan the Chinese were allies and the Russians were not.

        • philjourdan says:

          And the Battle of Britain was what?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Colorado says: …..Economic interests always matter in wars and our current political class demonstrates regularly it cannot be trusted. We agree but economic interests are not the only reason for wars. Marx says there are no other reasons. That’s all….
          OK I got it. I think David R. and his buddies have made it abundantly clear their goal isn’t wealth it is POWER.

          And yes Marx is a few marbles shy, or as I said paid by the banker’s for a philosophy they could use as a control knob. Religion has been used by the power hungry since before the dawn of writing but if you are aiming for world domination, and that was the aim, religion is rather useless. Enter Stage left Marxism, Socialism and the Fabian wolf.

        • rah says:


          Kennedy had decided to back out of Vietnam but was assassinated before he could start the withdraw. And unknown to most Americans the US maintained a presence there after WW II under Truman and on through to Kennedy.

          If you wanna finger a particular president for the US involvment in a full fledged war in Vietnam I would lay all my bets on LBJ because he was the guy that made that war and created the Gulf of Tonkin incidents to justify it’s massive expansion. After WW II not until LBJ were US troops actually deployed to Vietnam as combatants. Before that they were advisers that ended up in combat.

          Personally I don’t fault LBJ for any of that. I do however despise him for he and his whis kids trying to play General and micro manage the conduct of the war. LBJ has a whole lot of American blood on his hands as far as I’m concerned.

        • Gamecock says:

          Colorado, in the picture you posted, Stalin is saying to Roosevelt and Churchill, “When the hell are you people going to do something?”

          What I don’t like about “The totalitarian and murderous Soviet Union was a key ally of the United States during WWII” is that it insinuates American primacy. We didn’t enter the war until it was half-over. By the time we landed troops on mainland Europe, the Soviets had already routed the Germans at Stalingrad, and, more importantly, Kursk. By the time we landed in NW Europe, the Soviets were on the outskirts of Warsaw.

          The war on the Eastern Front dwarfed the West. 7/8s of German division months were in the East. In December, 1944, Eisenhower had 69 divisions under his command. That’s American, British, Commonwealth, French, Poles, etc. The Soviets had over 500. Quick math, we had 13.8% of what the Soviets had engaged.

          As I said earlier, WWII was between Germany and the Soviet Union. Yes, there were skirmishes worldwide. But they amounted to 1/8th of the war. Very important to us, but not so much in the eventual defeat of Germany. Give the Soviets the credit they deserve.

        • philjourdan says:

          The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

          General George S. Patton

          While the contribution of the soviets is not dismissed, the simple fact is Patton was correct.

          – Where did the Soviets get the materials to outfit all the divisions? Pitchforks and shovels are no match against tanks and rifles (not that the Soviet tanks were so hot either, they just had a lot of them).
          – HOw many Soviet bombs destroyed German war factories?
          – How many V1 and V2 Rockets fell on Moscow?

          The reality is the war was global (unlike warming). And that it was indeed a combined effort of now only the Soviets, but the UK and the US (with other countries playing minor roles). Russia did lose the most soldiers. But the kill ratio between Soviet and Germans in almost every battle was monstrously biased against the soviets. The reality is Russia had 2 things that worked to its advantage – land and cannon fodder (more commonly known as soldiers). They waged a war of attrition because that was their sole asset.

  5. Tom Moran says:

    Perhaps we can hire the Mexican drug cartels that we armed to protect us from ISIS/ISIL.

  6. Gail Combs says:

    So WHY isn’t Ex-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, under indictment for aiding and abetting the enemies of the USA?

    Heck I saw this coming back in 2010. I posted about it HERE.

    Napolitano was so busy spewing her venom about ‘Home Grown Terrorists’ she never noticed the real terrorists…. Or Obummer told her to let his Muslim buddies in.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Oh and pay very close attention to how a false flag is done.

      The formula, is:
      The first stage is to aggravate, literally to goad them until they had no choice but to strike back (sound familiar?)

      The second prong of the strategy is to insulate. Keep the victims (that’s us) from getting the information needed to protect themselves.

      The third and final stage is to Facilitate the attack: make it easy by offering no opposition.

      So expect to see major attacks by Jihadists here in the USA so the elite have another excuse for a timely and costly war… OH LOOK A SQUIRREL!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Dang I really do hate WordUnimpressed. Sorry for all the excess bolding.

        • tom0mason says:

          Ooops look like you have the same problem as I have with WordUnimpressed.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, I just flubbed another post for want of an / GRRRrrrrr. I double checked it too but the old eyes just are not that good anymore.

      • David A says:

        “The third and final stage is to Facilitate the attack: make it easy by offering no opposition.”

        Gail, what false flag do you think is in motion now, or soon?

        • Gail Combs says:

          I do not ‘know anything’ I can only put together the bits and pieces I see and what I see is the southern border has been left WIDE OPEN so any one who wants to can come through lugging what ever materials they wish. This despite a knowledge that terrorists were building bases of operations to the south. This despite all the ‘tells’ that signal we have a major problem brewing to the south. Not only does the Obama Admin leave the boarder open they use Fast and Furious to moved top flight weapons into the hands of drug lords/terrorists.

          One civilian I corresponded with said those he saw crossing the border illegally were not poor peasants but people with machine guns mounted on all terrain vehicles.

          October 26, 2005

          The United States projects a record 4,000 immigrants from so-called “high risk” countries in the Middle East and Asia, will be arrested trying to enter the country illegally this year.
          …Add to that Mexico’s recent seizures of high powered weapons, including rocket launchers found in Tijuana, and U.S. officials fear a troubling new threat on our porous southern border

          One Lebanese native living in Tijuana, convicted of smuggling 200 Lebanese into the United States, some with known ties to Hezbollah, which the United States considers a terror group.

          On a visit to the Arizona border, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo got a firsthand look at smuggling routes.

          “We’ve found copies of the Koran, we have found prayer rugs, we have found a lot of stuff written in Arabic, so it’s not just people from Mexico coming across that border,” Tancredo, a Republican, explains.

          And after shutting down more than 30 drug tunnels under the Mexican border, authorities recently discovered the first ever under the Canadian border…..

          September 15, 2014

          One Texas sheriff has said that he received an intelligence report stating that ISIS cells are operating in Ciudad Juarez, which is just across the border from El Paso, Texas….

          “The border is wide open. … There’s always a way to get across,” said Painter, pointing to evidence along border trails that Muslim individuals have been in the area.

          “We have have found Muslim clothing. They have found Koran books that are laying on the side of the trail. So we know that there are Muslims that have come across and are being smuggled into the United States,” he said.

          That is TEN YEARS the US government has KNOWN Muslims have been sneaking into this country… and have intentionally DONE NOTHING to effectively stop it despite the LAW to build a fence. Despite Stimulus Funds that could have been used to pay workers to build that fence and patrol the border.

          Instead we get this Useless Female Dog in charge of our border security.

          Special Guest: Arizona State Rep.-elect Jack Harper

          …. Jack, in 2007, you passed legislation to create a state-sanctioned militia here in Arizona. The then-governor, Napolitano, vetoed it….

          HARPER: Well, you might have heard that three of the four border states are losing their National Guard troops now. And Arizona is supposed to lose the federally funded National Guard troops in June or July. Well, we’re going to get crushed once the National Guard’s off the border because ….. these forces in Mexico that smuggle illegal aliens and drugs into our country, they’re more considered with the National Guard than they are Border Patrol. Border Patrol’s … under Janet Napolitano, and that’s not really an intimidating factor.

          July 19, 2010

          Although U.S. officials cannot confirm reports of the arrest Jamel Nasr recently in Tijuana, they should acknowledge that the reports are consistent with increasing concern that Hezbollah is seeking an operational base in the Americas. Nasr was no ordinary tourist or would-be immigrant. He is a made member of the Lebanese-based terror group, Hezbollah.

          Mexican authorities have released few details about his arrest, but they appear to have uncovered a network traceable back to the terrorist group’s headquarters in the Middle East….

          Last month, Paraguayan police arrested Moussa Ali Hamdan, a naturalized U.S. citizen. He had been sought by the U.S. since last November, when he was indicted for involvement in bogus passports, counterfeiting, and selling fake merchandise to finance Hezbollah operations.

          South and Central America hold definite attractions for the terror crowd. For starters, there’s money. Profits from the region’s lucrative drug trade help fuel many international terrorists. Hezbollah craves a share of the action.

          The Tri-Border region—the weakly-governed space where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay join—has been an area of ongoing concern for, U.S. counter-terrorism experts since 9/11. It boasts a high density of inhabitants of Arab descent. That, coupled with a robust smuggling trade, makes the Tri-Border a lawless breeding ground ideal for fueling international terrorism.

          More recently, Hezbollah seems to be finding convenient operating space in Venezuela

          September 24, 2009

          Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border….

          ….the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol “plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border…

          October 2008

          …Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps….

          “The border policies of the Mexican and United States governments have created a tragic and dangerous situation for citizens of both countries. Each year hundreds of Mexican and other nationals die a horrible death as they traverse desert wilderness attempting to illegally enter the United States. Among the sea of humanity that moves across the open borders every day, terrorists are free to walk across the border unchecked with chemical, biological and even nuclear materials. This is an unacceptable level of national security risk in a post-9/11 world”

          So there is the set-up, a nice inviting open border.

          Here is the bury the innocent citizen in bull poop the Admin has been dishing out.

          James Clapper, the head of intelligence for the United States of America, has explained to Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular.” It further has “eschewed violence,” decries al-Qaeda as a “perversion of Islam,” and really just wants “social ends” and “a betterment of the political order in Egypt.”

          This is the Muslim Brotherhood whose motto brays that the Koran is its law and jihad is its way. The MB whose Palestinian branch, the terrorist organization Hamas, was created for the specific purpose of destroying Israel — the goal its charter says is a religious obligation. It is the organization dedicated to the establishment of Islamicized societies and, ultimately, a global caliphate. It is an organization whose leadership says al-Qaeda’s emir, Osama bin Laden, is an honorable jihad warrior who was “close to Allah on high” in “resisting the occupation.”

          Any time the Muslims want to stage a terrorist attack in the USA they can thanks to Janet Napolitano whos focus has been on Conservatives ERrrr Homegrown terrorists.

          Washington (CNN) — The terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland has continued to “evolve” and may now “be at its most heightened state” since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told members of Congress on Wednesday.

          There is an increased reliance on recruiting Westerners into terrorist organizations, she told the House Homeland Security Committee. State and local law enforcement officers are increasingly needed to combat terror, and the focus must be on aiding law enforcement to help them secure communities, she said….

          In other words let’s focus on removing even more freedom from the everyday American by calling him a possible “Homegrown Terrorist”

        • David A says:

          Thanks Gail. I agree that Islamic terrorist are a real threat, and that Obama has an active interest in , being over polite here, not caring about this Nation. But a “false flag” is generally considered government, or a groups operatives, initiating hostile action in the pretense of being the bad guys. In this instance the Islamist are the bad guys, so I do not see the false flag, just ignorant statist who think the have the cat by the tail.

  7. philjourdan says:

    I see your clown patrol has checked in (Bob et. .al.)

    The fact the NY Crimes is carrying it means that even liberals are worried. Muslims think they can convert Christians. But they have no delusions about converting liberals. They should be scared., But what surprises me is that some realized that.

    • tom0mason says:

      “I see your clown patrol has checked in (Bob et. .al.)”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes it is a real surprise that the New York Propaganda Rag is carrying this.

      On the other hand we are coming up on election and Obummer needs to pull a winning political rabbit out of hisarse hat to distract the voting dead public from all of his flubs and spreading that blame to the rest of the DemiRats.

      Democrats = Republicans = 40% of the voters. That leaves 20% as swing voters.

      The Generic Congressional Ballot has been swing back and forth:
      Right now the DemiRats are in the lead… barely. A week ago the numbers were reversed.
      Democrats 41%, Republicans 38%

      This might be the key: September 15, 2014 Voters Agree with Obama’s Plans to Fight ISIS

      …A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 66% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the president’s plan for expanding U.S. airstrikes beyond Iraq to Syria to help defeat ISIS. Sixteen percent (16%) oppose this plan, while 18% are not sure. …

  8. Gail Combs says:

    David A says:
    …..But a “false flag” is generally considered government, or a groups operatives, initiating hostile action in the pretense of being the bad guys….
    OK sorry for using the wrong words though after Fast and Furious I wouldn’t put it passed the government.

    However if you do not think long range planning is not part of it readTHIS.

    In my state the CDC has jut convinced the state to raise the definition of “Farm” from $1,000 to $10,000 gross wiping out all the tax advantages for the small farmers who were already ~$2,000 in the hole. (The USDA considers the rental value of your home as part of your income in that calculation. The prior calculation was $14,000 in the hole.) The Food Safety Modernization act calls a small farm under $5,000.

    This should wipe out a lot more of the 2 million small farmers who keep the food prices down. If you bother to look Farmland and Food are the next Big Bubble.

  9. Gamecock, there is nothing that will piss me off more than someone twisting my words.

    I did not “insinuate American primacy”. I did not insinuate a damn thing. I made a clear counter point to Bob’s simplistic comment. You are not a moron. How did you come up with all this stuff I did not say?

    I don’t have to “give the Soviets the credit they deserve”. Read my words! My post had absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet war effort or the relative contributions of WWII belligerents to the final outcome.

    As a side point: It’s possible but I doubt you know more than I do about the suffering of ordinary people in the Soviet Union—before, during and after WWII. Go pick a fight with someone else if that’s what you need.

    As for the debatable rest:

    1. You keep repeating that “WWII was between Germany and the Soviet Union”. Does it mean that WWII started on June 22, 1941 with Operation Barbarossa?

    2. Since you curiously limit the scope of WWII to these two belligerents only, shouldn’t we also use their terms? The Soviets called it Великая Отечественная война (The Great Patriotic War). The Russians and others still do today. The Nazis called it Russlandfeldzug (Russian Campaign) or Ostfeldzug (East Campaign). They did not call it der Zweite Weltkrieg (WWII) though today’s Germans do.

    3. Worldwide skirmishes, eh? I think that in your quest for expression you have achieved a level of almost poetic vagueness but I would not try the phrasing on WWII veterans, their families or the families of the fallen. That kind of poetry makes people edgy.

    4. You say that “we didn’t enter the war until it was half-over”. It’s a mystery to me how we could have entered a war that excluded us by your definition (conflict “between Germany and the Soviet Union”), but fuzzy logic aside, many Central and Eastern Europeans regretted that the United States had not entered the war earlier and kept their countries out of the postwar Soviet zone. It also seems that once the Red Army started advancing, Stalin was just fine with taking control of as much Europe as possible without American presence.

    Enough for today. The tractor has a flat and it will be a busy morning.

    • rah says:

      Let us not forget there was a war on the other side of the world. After some smaller battles in which the Soviets dominated the attacking Japanese in Manchuria and then attacked and established the border where they thought it should be there was no action on the eastern front.

      The non-aggression pact between Imperial Japan and the Soviets in April of 1941 and the reports from a competent and trusted spy that Japan had decided to adhere to the pact allowed the Stalin to reduce his force of about 40 Divisions on that border in half at a critical time. Without those forces brought west to reinforce the defenses of Moscow the Germans more than likely would have taken that city despite Hitler’s incompetent meddling in sending Guderian’s Panzer Army south away from it’s original objective of Moscow.

      As the emergency of 1941-42 passed and the fronts stabilized Stalin gradually built back up his forces in east but they remained strictly on the defense. Then with Hitler defeated Stalin transferred massive forces east until August of 1945 when he renounced the non-aggression pact and quickly over ran the Japanese in Manchuria.

      Also that non-aggression pact allowed free unfettered opening of the Alaska-Siberia route and security for the Trans Siberia rail line. The majority of US aircraft and eventually a significant amount of other Lend Lease materials passed to Russia (nearly 50% in total) from the US via the Alaska-Siberia route.

      You got it right Colorado. As far as Gamecock is concerned based on his writing at times it seems he believes the whole outcome of WW II was determined in the fight between the Soviets and Nazis. Frankly I understand why some folks think that way. Part of it has to do with so much being written, read, and celebrated about the Anglo-American fights and triumphs in the west as compared to the much larger and much more sanguine battles in the east which were at times more important.

      In my view all are important and cannot be separated in the way Gamecock seems to try and do because you can not ignore nor denigrate the contributions and relative capabilities and achievements of either side. They both had be successful to beat Hitler. If Britain had been defeated then Stalin probably could not have won. If the Anglo-Americans had not won the Battle of the Atlantic, Stalin probably could not have won. What if Hitler had been wise enough not to have declared war in the US?

      If the US and UK forces in the Pacific and CBI had not supported the Chinese they would not have had the power to hold the bulk of the Japanese forces in China and where would some of those forces have been used? A land link between the Nazis and the forces of Nippon via Burma-Inda-SW Asia would have been disastrous for Stalin or the Anglo-Americans but at it turned out it was only the Anglo-Americans that could prevent such a thing from happening. If Stalin had made a separate peace with Hitler and sold critical oil and other supplies to Hitlers Germany then Britain and the US would have hard pressed to even hold what they had and may not have lasted until the US developed the game changing atomic bombs.

      It goes on and on with so many possible scenarios if all had not held their lines or failed in their offensives at critical places and times. In my view what happened was so interdependent and so very complex that the possible scenarios and outcomes are nearly endless. But in the final analysis while no single front nor action could have won the war against the Axis a loss on any one of several at different times and places, some of them thousands of miles away from Moscow and Stalingrad, could have lost it .

      • Thanks for your post, rah. Many of those interdependencies and possible outcomes went through my mind last night, including the huge role that a single man, Richard Sorge, played in the war.

        Stalin refused to save him despite repeated Japanese offers. In the end, he was as expendable as the millions of Soviet soldiers at the front.

      • rah says:

        For those that don’t know, Sorge was Stalin spy with the Japanese that I mentioned.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Thanks for the history lesson. School always flitted passed this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s