The last refuge of a liberal

The last refuge of a liberal



COMMENT
2226 Comments | View All »
POST A COMMENT

WHO'S BLOGGING
» Links to this article

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010

"Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was
all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people
have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19
months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James
Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the
small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an
unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or
religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward
people who aren't like them."


That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous
charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast
media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on
incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness
and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist
resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to
curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law?
Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human
history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground
Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's
excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly
govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?



Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the
argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided
majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g.,
the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage
and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that
preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance
of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of
course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous,
leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction
to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's
proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat
cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a
black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to
believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal
immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not
hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e.,
amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition
of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe
that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an
affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure
of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is
something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since
the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every
society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near
unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry
toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the
population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection
between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails
perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war
with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and
indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and
politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared
Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse
of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it
resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful
variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of
pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who
aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation
that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright
mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just
because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read
his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is
due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great
unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to
those who dare oppose them."

link- Washington Post:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4zEvleths239a10

the last refuge of dirty jews and hillbillies, the first too,
looking out for their wealthy masters even if it means ****ing themselves
"PJ Himselff" wrote in message
...
The last refuge of a liberal



COMMENT
2226 Comments | View All »
POST A COMMENT

WHO'S BLOGGING
» Links to this article

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010

"Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was
all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people
have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19
months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James
Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the
small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an
unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or
religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward
people who aren't like them."


That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous
charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast
media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on
incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness
and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist
resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to
curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law?
Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human
history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground
Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's
excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly
govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?



Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the
argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided
majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g.,
the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage
and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that
preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance
of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of
course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous,
leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction
to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's
proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat
cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a
black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to
believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal
immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not
hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e.,
amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition
of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe
that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an
affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure
of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is
something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since
the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every
society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near
unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry
toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the
population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection
between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails
perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war
with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and
indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and
politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared
Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse
of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it
resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful
variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of
pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who
aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation
that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright
mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just
because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read
his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is
due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great
unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to
those who dare oppose them."

link- Washington Post:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4zEvleths239a10

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:26:43 -0700 (PDT), in uk.politics.misc, PJ
Himselff , wrote

The last refuge of a liberal



COMMENT
2226 Comments | View All »
POST A COMMENT

WHO'S BLOGGING
» Links to this article

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010

"Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was
all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people
have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19
months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James
Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the
small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an
unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or
religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward
people who aren't like them."


That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous
charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast
media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on
incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness
and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist
resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to
curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law?
Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human
history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground
Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's
excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly
govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?



Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the
argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided
majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g.,
the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage
and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that
preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance
of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of
course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous,
leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction
to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's
proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat
cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a
black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to
believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal
immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not
hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e.,
amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition
of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe
that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an
affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure
of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is
something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since
the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every
society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near
unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry
toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the
population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection
between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails
perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war
with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and
indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and
politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared
Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse
of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it
resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful
variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of
pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who
aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation
that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright
mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just
because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read
his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is
due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great
unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to
those who dare oppose them."

link- Washington Post:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4zEvleths239a10

Excellent article. Usenet is a roiling crucible of those bullet points.

On Aug 30, 4:03*pm, Donna Evleth wrote:
From: Mitchell Holman
Organization: TDSOTF
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:35:48 -0500
Subject: The last refuge of a liberal

PJ Himselff wrote in news:d7c72a47-d3de-4300-90ac-
:

On Aug 30, 7:23*am, Donna Evleth the self
proclaimed 'historian' pontificated to usenet

*The reason the *United States went into that conflict was because Germ
any had declared war
on them. * *

.

Donna Evleth- -

Then the reason that Germany went to war with France was because
France, like the British Empire, *declared war on Germany

When did France "declare" war on Germany?

Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:
"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. *On September 3,
Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France, determined this
time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."

Donna Evleth



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wars are bloody bad. Even the more righteous kind, like WWII.
Donna Evleth

So saving the French from the Nazis is righteous but saving New
York
City from further al Qaeda attacks isn't?
Bill Bonde

Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:

"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. On September
3,
Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France,
determined this
time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."

Donna Evleth

IOW our self proclaimed 'historian' is saying here is that ZFwench
were forced to declare war on Germany to save Poland from the Nazis
but ZFwench were not concerned when the Bolsheviks invaded Poland also
in Sept 1939, seizing more Polish territory than the Germans in doing
so?

Yep. For Leftism WWII certainly was really the only 'good war for
them'.

LOL at the logic of a self proclaimed 'historian'.

On Aug 30, 4:03*pm, Donna Evleth wrote:
From: Mitchell Holman
Organization: TDSOTF
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:35:48 -0500
Subject: The last refuge of a liberal

PJ Himselff wrote in news:d7c72a47-d3de-4300-90ac-
:

On Aug 30, 7:23*am, Donna Evleth the self
proclaimed 'historian' pontificated to usenet

*The reason the *United States went into that conflict was because Germ
any had declared war
on them. * *

.

Donna Evleth- -

Then the reason that Germany went to war with France was because
France, like the British Empire, *declared war on Germany

When did France "declare" war on Germany?

Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:
"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. *On September 3,
Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France, determined this
time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."

Donna Evleth



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:
"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. On September
3,
Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France,
determined this
time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."

Donna Evleth


The above covers the Fwench perception of the provocations by Germany
justifying the Fwench to delare their war on Germany

Below is the German declaration of war on the US which includes the
German perception of provocations by the US justifying the Germans to
declare war on the US.
To my knowledge none of the German accusations of US provocations have
ever been disputed


© 1997 The Avalon Project.
The Avalon Project : The German Declaration of War with the United
States : December 11, 1941


The text of the note which the German representatives handed to Mr.
Ray
Atherton, Chief of the European Division of the State Department, at
9:30 A.M., December 11, the original of which had been delivered the
morning of December 11 to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin,
follows:


MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:


The Government of the United States having violated in the most
flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality
in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been
guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the
outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of
war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to
open
military acts of aggression.


On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly
declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot
on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941,
he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting
under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September
1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus,
American
destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben
James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The
Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed
that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.


Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of
their Government and contrary to international law have treated and
seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.


The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:


Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States during
every
period of the present war, the Government of the United States from
initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts
of
war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby
virtually created a state of war.


The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic
relations
with the United States of America and declares that under these
circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as
from
today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United
States of America.


Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high
consideration.


December 11, 1941.


RIBBENTROP.
Source:
Department of State Bulletin, December 13, 1941.
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1941http://sangha.net/
messengers/roosevelt.htm

-

On Aug 31, 8:06*am, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:03*pm, Donna Evleth wrote:

From: Mitchell Holman
Organization: TDSOTF
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:35:48 -0500
Subject: The last refuge of a liberal

PJ Himselff wrote in news:d7c72a47-d3de-4300-90ac-
:

On Aug 30, 7:23*am, Donna Evleth the self
proclaimed 'historian' pontificated to usenet

*The reason the *United States went into that conflict was because Germ
any had declared war
on them. * *

.

Donna Evleth- -

Then the reason that Germany went to war with France was because
France, like the British Empire, *declared war on Germany

When did France "declare" war on Germany?

Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:
"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. *On September 3,
Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France, determined this
time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."

Donna Evleth

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
*Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:

*"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. *On September
3,
*Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France,
determined this
*time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."

*Donna Evleth

The above covers the Fwench perception of the provocations by Germany
justifying the Fwench to delare their war on Germany

Below is the German declaration of war on the US which includes the
German perception of provocations by the US justifying the Germans to
declare war on the US.
To my knowledge none of the German accusations of US provocations have
ever been disputed

© 1997 The Avalon Project.
The Avalon Project : The German Declaration of War with the United
States : December 11, 1941

The text of the note which the German representatives handed to Mr.
Ray
Atherton, Chief of the European Division of the State Department, at
9:30 A.M., December 11, the original of which had been delivered the
morning of December 11 to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin,
follows:

MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most
flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality
in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been
guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the
outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of
war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to
open
military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly
declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot
on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941,
he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting
under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September
1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus,
American
destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben
James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The
Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed
that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of
their Government and contrary to international law have treated and
seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States during
every
period of the present war, the Government of the United States from
initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts
of
war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby
virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic
relations
with the United States of America and declares that under these
circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as
from
today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United
States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high
consideration.

December 11, 1941.

RIBBENTROP.
Source:
Department of State Bulletin, December 13, 1941.
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1941http://sangha.net/
messengers/roosevelt.htm

*-

I stop by every so often only to offer information. I worked in US
war plans. They are designed to affect the "future state" and what
rationale exists to execute them is according to each nation's
national interests. The roots of WWII go back to the Treaty of
Versailles (read the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman) which
basically says that WWI was preordained by European countries having
such interlinked defense treaties that anything could set it off. And
the assassination of some remote Archduke of Serbia did it. WWII was
preordained by the conditions of so-called peace.

It does not make any difference what the political rationale is. The
conditions make the war. The war in Iraq was preordained and whether
there was, or was not, any weapons of mass destruction (and there was
because the US and the UK provided them to Hussain) it was going to
happen, one way or the other. If it was not this rationale then there
would be another rationale.

And if you think we are alone in this, look at the rationale for North
Korea invading the south. And North Vietnam invading the south (a
good masquerade that local Viet Cong bit.) Invasions occur because
the conditions are ripe The rationale follows.

billzz wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:06 am, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
On Aug 30, 4:03 pm, Donna Evleth wrote:

From: Mitchell Holman
Organization: TDSOTF
Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:35:48 -0500
Subject: The last refuge of a liberal
PJ Himselff wrote in news:d7c72a47-d3de-4300-90ac-
:
On Aug 30, 7:23 am, Donna Evleth the self
proclaimed 'historian' pontificated to usenet
The reason the United States went into that conflict was because Germ
any had declared war
on them.
.
Donna Evleth- -
Then the reason that Germany went to war with France was because
France, like the British Empire, declared war on Germany
When did France "declare" war on Germany?
Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:
"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. On September 3,
Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France, determined this
time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."
Donna Evleth
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Here is how my French Petit Robert dictionary answers this question:
"September first, 1939, Germans forces entered Poland. On September
3,
Great Britain, which had a commitment to Poland, and France,
determined this
time to support its ally, declared war on Germany."

Donna Evleth

The above covers the Fwench perception of the provocations by Germany
justifying the Fwench to delare their war on Germany

Below is the German declaration of war on the US which includes the
German perception of provocations by the US justifying the Germans to
declare war on the US.
To my knowledge none of the German accusations of US provocations have
ever been disputed

© 1997 The Avalon Project.
The Avalon Project : The German Declaration of War with the United
States : December 11, 1941

The text of the note which the German representatives handed to Mr.
Ray
Atherton, Chief of the European Division of the State Department, at
9:30 A.M., December 11, the original of which had been delivered the
morning of December 11 to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin,
follows:

MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most
flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of
neutrality
in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been
guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the
outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of
war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to
open
military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly
declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot
on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941,
he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting
under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September
1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus,
American
destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben
James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The
Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed
that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of
their Government and contrary to international law have treated and
seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of
international law in her relations with the United States during
every
period of the present war, the Government of the United States from
initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts
of
war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby
virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic
relations
with the United States of America and declares that under these
circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as
from
today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United
States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high
consideration.

December 11, 1941.

RIBBENTROP.
Source:
Department of State Bulletin, December 13, 1941.
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1941http://sangha.net/
messengers/roosevelt.htm

-

I stop by every so often only to offer information. I worked in US
war plans. They are designed to affect the "future state" and what
rationale exists to execute them is according to each nation's
national interests. The roots of WWII go back to the Treaty of
Versailles (read the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman) which
basically says that WWI was preordained by European countries having
such interlinked defense treaties that anything could set it off. And
the assassination of some remote Archduke of Serbia did it. WWII was
preordained by the conditions of so-called peace.

It does not make any difference what the political rationale is. The
conditions make the war. The war in Iraq was preordained and whether
there was, or was not, any weapons of mass destruction (and there was
because the US and the UK provided them to Hussain) it was going to
happen, one way or the other. If it was not this rationale then there
would be another rationale.

And if you think we are alone in this, look at the rationale for North
Korea invading the south. And North Vietnam invading the south (a
good masquerade that local Viet Cong bit.) Invasions occur because
the conditions are ripe The rationale follows.

Hmm...interesting enough but questionable. Bound to be
of course. Explain the rational for North Korea invading
the south especially considering the large American force
stationed there. Indeed it would be difficult to find any
rationality in North Korea both domestic and foreign other
than the desire to retain power by the family of mad men
who have controlled NK since 1945.