The Most People Lynched at One Time in American History, All 11 of Them, Were White

Many people, especially in Europe, assume that lynching was nothing less than a gratuitous crime, and a crime committed exclusively against blacks — specifically innocent blacks and in any case, whatever the race, innocents.

In fact, almost a third as many whites as blacks were lynched (think of the many cowboys on their steeds in the Old West), and just about always, it was a response to a very real crime that had, or seemed to have, been committed. As for lynchings of blacks, we always hear of how it was a Southern atrocity, if not an American one, but many fewer details about how most of them seemed to occur in places that amounted to being almost single-party (Democratic) states.

Indeed, the largest number of people killed by a mob in one place at one time in American history was 11, and all 11 of them were white.

Lynchings were not always done with a noose or a necklace, however, and this month marks the 125th anniversary of that "mass" killing — t'was not a roping, but (mostly) a shooting (inside the prison) — which occurred in New Orleans.

Indeed, lynching has certainly at times been — very — misguided, but at times it has seemed to be the only way to get justice for a crime.

When you learn that the 11 men were Sicilian, it should give you some sort of a hint of the criminal elements involved; when you learn that the reason their lives were disposed of was due to their acquittal for the murder of a police chief after the jury and/or the judge had allegedly been paid off by the Mafia, you will start understanding that sometimes lynchers have a good reason to be angry (see also: tar and feathers).

To this day, there is controversy about whether all of the 11 men belonged to the Mafia (see typical Hollywood film trailer below), but one thing that seems incontrovertible is that, in the wake of the lynchings, the Mafia decided that, contrary to their counterparts in Italy, American policemen should no longer be the targets of assassination.

The New York Herald, European Edition, March 15, 1891:

The late Chief of Police David C. Hennessy, of New Orleans, is avenged — not by the arm of the law, for the jury yesterday [March 13] acquitted six of the Sicilians accused of murdering him, and failed to agree on a verdict as to the other three — but by his indignant fellow citizens, who, satisfied that the men were guilty, sent them swiftly today to their last account.

Roused to action by speakers this morning, a mob made a dash for the prison, determined to take the Italians out and lynch them. Having burst through the prison doors, the mob fired volley after volley into the cells, and the men were riddled with bullets.

The New York Herald, European Edition, March 25, 1891:

The metropolitan police are working assiduously to check the rapidly-growing organization of Italians in the country, which has the avowed object of taking a sanguinary revenge upon Americans for the New Orleans lynching. Detective sergeants Perezzo and Lissaro have been especially detailed to watch the movements of their countrymen. They have succeeded in tracing the whereabouts of two leaders of the Mafia in New Orleans, who arrived in New York on Friday. They are being shadowed by Inspector Byrne’s men, who have orders that on the first sign of an attempt to incite their compatriots to violence the two are to be arrested. 

It seems that Obama likes the military only as a production line for historic “firsts” that he can take credit for

Our military is a mess, warns veteran Benny Huang. Don't assume it's accidental.

How it must have pained Marine Corps General John Paxton to tell Congress that his service might not be prepared for war. … He fretted over inadequate training and equipment particularly in the fields of communications, intelligence, and aviation.

 … Nor is the Marine Corps alone in its negative self-assessment. Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley told Congress that his branch is prepared to do battle with ISIS—and no other potential adversary. The US would probably lose a war with China, according to General Milley. Or with Russia, North Korea, or Iran. According to an Associated Press article: “Mark Milley says years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, constrained budgets and troop cuts have had a cumulative effect on the service.” Essentially, our military is capable of defeating the guys Obama described as the JV team but not a conventional force of any heft. Pathetic.

 … It doesn’t help that their commander-in-chief pretends not to hear what they’re saying. Just two months ago, President Obama delivered a State of the Union address in which he pooh-poohed the very idea that our armed forces are languishing in disrepair. Said Obama:

“I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.” (Emphasis added.)

What a dolt. Surely he can’t believe that our military’s combat effectiveness can be measured in dollars spent? The measure of any endeavor is always results. His argument reminds me that, once upon a time, Mr. Obama was just a left-wing community activist. He still sounds like one.

Didn’t President Obama consult his top military leaders before including that remark in his speech? If he had they would have told him what they told Congress last week—namely, that the military is woefully unprepared. If we rule out the possibility that he’s never had such a conversation with the brass then we must conclude that he flippantly dismissed what they told him, probably with the same nifty factoid about military expenditures that he used at the State of the Union. Obama clearly didn’t listen to his advisors because they told him something he didn’t want to hear.

Or is there another possibility? Could it be that this president knows quite well how much the military has atrophied under his administration and he’s pleased with it? In order to prove such a claim definitively I would have to get into his mind to determine his true motives, which I obviously can’t do. There’s nothing in his public statements to indicate a hostility toward the military, though there’s enough anecdotal evidence to indicate a casual disrespect, such as his now infamous latte salute and the completely unreasonable rules of engagement he imposed on combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a man with no military experience and it shows.

He’s also the president who opened all combat positions to women. That alone would have been a mistake but of course his administration exerted downward pressure to get women into elite units such as the Army Rangers without actually requiring them to meet standards. After two women “passed” the Ranger course this summer, it came to light that they had received special assistance and unlimited opportunities to reattempt portions of the course that they had failed. “We were under huge pressure to comply,” said one Ranger instructor. “It was very much politicized.”

It seems that Obama likes the military only as a production line for historic “firsts” that he can take credit for.
 … Obama has always admired people who hate US military power but we’re supposed to believe that he doesn’t.

Our military has fallen on tough times and it will be up to the next president to rehabilitate it. Whether the harm that has befallen our military is the result of mere neglect or actual malfeasance is difficult to determine though I wouldn’t rule out the latter.

The banner of everyone who is sick of PC; Voting for Donald Trump is "all we can do is register a protest against the Dickensian nightmare that the elites have created for us"

A reader reacts to a typical mainstream editorial in The Economist:

You used so much ink trying to convince us that Donald Trump is not fit for office (“Time to fire him”, February 27th). Do you think the type of person who reads your erudite publication would ever consider voting for him? Not likely. The people who will vote for The Donald are the disaffected bitter-clingers whom the last candidate you passionately begged us to vote for—Barack Obama—disparaged in his campaign. Those same disaffected people haven’t been doing well over the past eight years, and in case you haven’t noticed, they are mad as hell.

Government isn’t working for us. There are few good jobs, we’ve been stuck with a joke of a health-care system, the few rights we still enjoy are under siege and the future looks dim for our children. We are powerless to foment a revolution while working two part-time jobs to make ends meet, so all we can do is register a protest against the Dickensian nightmare that the elites have created for us by voting. Apparently, nobody listened (Republican or Democrat) to what we were trying to say in 2012. Come November, you’ll be hearing from us again, louder and clearer.

MARK KRASCHEL

Portland, Oregon

Meanwhile, the article's featured comment reads in part:

 … If you look past what he's saying, you can see he has become the banner of everyone who is sick of political correctness, sick of being called "racist" for expressing non-liberal opinions, and, most especially, sick of politicians who say whatever they need to to get elected, and then proceed to do whatever the people who paid for their campaign want.

It doesn't matter if Trump can't keep his promises. He is punishment for a party that has disenfranchised its political bases so much that they feel their only hope for having their interests represented is - the demagogue. He is punishment for politicians who have crossed a line in ignoring the wants of their voters (a line they always seem to want to get as close to as possible without going over). If it's any consolation, one of the insights from Bentley's "The Process of Government" is that demagogues, as politician coalitions, tend to fall apart as soon as they win power and begin to work out the details of what they're going to do.

But I chuckle every time I see some eight page refutation of Trumps economic policies. If that's how you're going to try and take him down, then I can safely say that Trump will end up doing whatever the forces of history have in store for him. Scholarly critiques will do nothing. …

oesioij adds a question:

Are you denying that a huge portion of Republicans distrust the Republican establishment, and that Trump is their protest candidate? Are you denying that Trump supporters are a coalition of people with notably different political philosophies, who are cooperating purely because of Trump's ability to bring people together as a demagogue? Evangelicals, moderates, blue-collars, white collar - these people aren't just voting for him, they're *excited* about voting for him. That's unusual.

If you want to find out what interests are in play here, listen to what Trump says. Look at what he devotes his emotional energy to when he speaks. Firstly, there is the wall - the illegals. Except this is really a proxy for two issues - the poor economy and lack of jobs, and the sense that Republican "culture" is diminishing in American society, because of the influx of foreigners.

There is the fact that Trump is not just criticizing political correctness, but putting his money where his mouth is - he is *being* politically incorrect. A large portion of the US feels that they cannot talk about their values, their political attitudes, without looking over their shoulder and talking in hushed tones. Even if I don't agree with everything Trump says, the fact that he can say it and not be ruined means that my beliefs, undoubtedly more moderate, are now safer to talk about.

Twelfth Anniversary of My First Post for No Pasarán

A few weeks after the founding of No Pasarán, 12 years ago, I was invited to join as the blog's fourth blogger (after Douglas, Jonathan, and Liminal aka U*2, and prior to N Joe). Today is the anniversary of my first contribution:

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Growling for Colombani

Any of you who have seen me over the past 10 days knows how furious I get anytime I read or hear the French media trying to stuff down our throats their self-serving lying charges (those against Aznar, Bush, and Blair, i.e., anybody whom they don't feel any sympathy with).

So when I read that the Mémorial de Caen was organizing a conference with Jean-Marie Colombani, among others ("QUELLE LIBERTÉ POUR L'INFORMATION DANS UN MONDE INQUIÉTANT ?", organized in tandem with Les Amis de l'hebdomadaire La Vie and Reporters sans Frontières), I knew I had to attend. I wanted to give Le Monde's director a piece of my mind (in a diplomatic manner, natch). Three hours before it started at 7 pm on March 23, 2004, I jumped into my trusty jalopy, and drove the 260 km to Caen, arriving just in the nick of time.

And sure enough, the first thing any of the five intervenants did (with a constant wry smile on his face) was to attack the lies of politicians, ridicule the partisanship of the media, and bemoan the jingoism of the population (meaning those of the US, the UK, and Aznar's Spain exclusively, bien sûr). It was Jean-Marie Charon, "Sociologue des médias" (whatever that means), who opened the débat — the others being (left to right on the admittedly unclear photo) Colombani, Walter Wells, Directeur de l'International Herald Tribune (beard), Jean-Jacques Lerosier, Grand reporter à Ouest-France, and Jacqueline Papet, Rédactrice-en-chef de RFI, with the moderators answering to the names of Daniel Junqua, Journaliste et Vice-président de RSF, and Jean-Claude Escaffit, Journaliste à La Vie et Directeur des Amis de La Vie.

Before I left Paris, I'd reviewed and written down (in telegraph-style) a handful of arguments: these ranged from the Iraqis quoted in Reason, on Iraq the Model, and in Le Monde itself, to Doug's post on Le Monde's partisan mistranslation of Michael Ignatieff's piece in the New York Times.

The only problem was a rather big one, I learned as a I headed for my seat: questions would not be permitted, except in written form on small pieces of paper handed over to one of the animators. So I knew I had to pay close attention if I wanted to find an appropriate moment when to jump in. And I would obviously not have time to develop any of the arguments (especially since Eskaffit seemed to be a control freak).

It happened towards the end. There was a brief lull as Wells was about to make his last extensive remarks. Suddenly everybody turned to me as I let out : "Je pense que nous devons tous remercier les médias français pour leur admirable abilité à détecter les mensonges. Mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi ces spécialistes en la matière ignorent des sujets qui ont été traités dans le Herald Tribune, par exemple." (This was punctuated by Eskaffit's protests on his mike, you realize.) "Nous avons pu y lire des articles détaillant ce qu'on pourrait taxer de mensonges dans le camp de la paix, comme le fait que les Allemands, les Russes, et les Français avaient pas mal d'affaires avec les autorités baasistes, et que Total devait avoir un contrat exclusif avec Saddam Hussein. Pourquoi les médias français n'en font-ils pas autant état que de ce qui concerne les Ricains, les Rosbifs, et les Espagnols?"

Eskaffit was growing increasingly more vocal in asking/telling me to keep quiet (shades of Chirac?) — he claimed that "de toutes façons", nobody could hear me — so seeing the end approaching (and having a hard time competing against a microphone), I pulled out my final ace — the final ace being a book, which I held above my head. (Yes, there did seem to be a somewhat theatrical element to this scene; why do you ask?) "Et en matière de mensonges, il y a ce livre d'un rédacteur de La Croix, qui a été licencié pour l'avoir publié, qui s'appelle Comment la presse nous a désinformés sur l'Irak. Et qui raconte les partis pris des Français pour diaboliser Bush, pour sanctifier Chirac, et pour communier avec les partis de la 'paix'."

Even a few audience members had by now started to tell me to keep quiet, but that seemed an appropriate place to end anyway, so with that I sat down.

As for Eskaffit, he went on talking to the intervenants… ignoring completely what I had said. (While a couple of people behind me asked to see the book.) Well, I felt I had done my blogger's duty, so to speak, so I sat back, pretty content with myself.

Then, as Junqua made his last remarks, I understood that some people had heard me; the RSF moderator surprised me by pulling out his own copy of Alain Hertoghe's book (which he had in his briefcase), and explained that it provided a negative view of the French media during the Iraq war. But then he added that there was another book, detailing the French press's doings during the first Gulf war, with a positive slant, and that one could not read the first book without comparing it to the second. He tried to conclude that Hertoghe's book was a partisan "brûlot" that was not very friendly to his colleagues. (This from a colloque which had just declared that, happily, the old tradition in the press of refusing to criticize one's colleagues had now become "caduc"!)

I wasn't going to let him get away with that as the final word, so I let out another comment: "Les médias ont complètement censuré ce livre!" (But Eskaffit immediately started interrupting again.)

Afterwards, I went up to speak to some of the intervenants. Wells asked to see Hertoghe's book, which he wanted to check out. As for Junqua, he admitted it was news to him that the La Croix editor had been fired as a result of the book's publication.

So, all in all, a satisfying 10 minutes. (But hardly worth doing again, not at that distance. At least not without a couple of chums to have a drink with, afterwards.)

P.S. This is my first post for ¡No Pasarán! Muchas gracias, amigos, for inviting me to participar.

Posted by Erik at 20:03

The Consequences of the Far Left's Fairy Tale Type of Foreign Policy

“The political situation in Europe is very uncertain at the moment,” [Drawsko Pomorskie] Mayor Zbigniew Ptak told the [American] troops. “So your presence here [in this Polish town] gives us a real sense of security.”

Noting "how quickly [Vladimir] Putin has shredded the certainties of the post-Cold War era," Andrew Higgins reports on the threat to Europe of "surging Russian military activity redolent of East-West sparring during the Cold War" (Norway Reverts to Cold War Mode as Russian Air Patrols Spike, April 1).

This comes amid stories that 120 armored vehicles are rolling through Eastern Europe with over 500 U.S. troops to reassure the local populations (An American Military Convoy in Europe Aims to Reassure Allies, March 29), while all over Poland, civilians are imitating their Baltic neighbors and preparing for a Russian invasion (Poles Steel for Battle, Fearing Russia Will March on Them Next, March 14).

Iraq, meanwhile, is staggering under the onslaught and massacres of ISIS and Al Qaeda, thanks at least partly to the U.S. troop pullout of 2011, which the White House accompanied with assurances that the Commander-in-Chief had "ended the war in Iraq." As for the Middle East writ large, signs point towards a regional nuclear arms race.

Who can truly say with a straight face that the world is a safer place in 2015 than in 2008? (Or that America is more respected, for that matter?)

For all this is reported without mentioning the obvious. This all happened, or is happening, on the watch of the alleged genius whose "smart diplomacy" would take over from the saber-rattling of the dumb cowboy Bush, who would make America popular again from Europe to the Mideast, and whose mere presence in the White House would make the world a safer place.

All these events are on the watch of the man who, among other things, mocked Mitt Romney's assertion that Russia was the West's "No. 1 geopolitical foe" and who over the years has seemed to display more friendliness towards foreign leaders and despots — not least among them the Kremlin's overlords — than the opposition in America; to such a point that he was overheard telling Dmitry Medvedev just to wait out the next election, then he would have more flexibility after Romney was defeated (with help from the IRS).

So contemptuous was, and is, Obama towards America's Republicans that he could not find time for a meeting with then-Minority Senate leader Mitch McConnell for the first 18 months of his term. The Castro brothers, Hugo Chávez, and the Saudi king? That's an entirely different story.

Of course, this is explained by his far left upbringing, which claims to have a profound understanding of who America's—and the world's—true enemies are: those despicable U.S. capitalists and those clueless conservatives who for some incomprehensible reason have the gall to display doubt about Obama's forward-looking "hope'n'change" policies (domestic as well as foreign) aimed at "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

Seven years ago, during the 2008 elections, I wrote in these very pages (Campaign Jousting, Letters, International Herald Tribune, Oct. 11, 2008) to warn against a repeat of the "fairy tale-type of foreign policy" that was ubiquitous under "Jimmy Carter's similar 'be-understanding-to-our-enemies and tough-on-our-friends' approach to foreign affairs." I take no pride in having been proven right.
 

"This is a university! It is not a day-care!"

This is a university! It is not a day-care!

Thus speaketh Everett Piper, also known as the College President Taking on 'Ideological Fascism' (thanks to Maggie's Farm). At CPAC 2016, the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University was interviewed by The Daily Signal's Rob Bluey (pictured).

Key quote:

Disagreement is now synonymous with hate.

 … We've taught narcissism and self-absorption. We've taught self-actualization rather than personal morality.

 … We've actually come to the point where we can say, "I can't tolerate your intolerance, and I hate you hateful people, and I'm sure that nothing is sure, and I know that nothing can be known, and I am absolutely confident there are no absolutes." It's the self-refuting duplicity of the 60s and 70s and 80s coming home to roost in the current generation.

At CPAC 2016, Oklahoma Wesleyan University (OKWU) president Everett Piper received the Kirkpatrick Award for Academic Freedom during the Ronald Reagan Banquet because of his strong message to members of the university community that they have come to the (Christian) school to be exposed to adversarial ideas, not protected from them.

"I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated": A Recap of No Pasarán's Che Guevara Posts

Reader, if perchance you don't understand some people's opposition to this most romantic of revolutionaries — if indeed you find it baffling — you might want to peruse through some of the following thoughts on Che Guevara:

• It is customary for followers of a cult not to know the real life story of their hero, the historical truth

• "I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated"

…The future T-shirt icon … proclaimed to the press that his ideal societal model was Kim Il-Sung's North Korea. … Guevara traveled there in 1965, saw the brutality and poverty with his own eyes, and then made it his goal to import that system to Latin America. As a champion of the poor, Che aspired to emulate a society that truly benefits its poorest inhabitants -anyone not named Kim Jong-il or Kim Il-Sung. … Leftists always have a problem with U.S.-backed dictatorships, but never with Stalinist and Maoist stooges like — well, like Che Guevara. (Benjamin Duffy)

• Stalin II

There is a misperception that [Ernesto "Che" Guevara] was a free spirit. He had cold Stalinist personality. He used to sign his early correspondence "Stalin II." He said early on that he saw the solution to all the world's problems behind (the) Iron Curtain. But this was not some hippie dippie Marxist, Guevara said in speech in 1962 that he regarded the very spirit of rebellion as anti-revolutionary. Figure that out, he said individualism must disappear in Cuba. If you tried to do your own thing under his regime you wound up in a prison camp. (Humberto Fontova)

• The jails of Castro are far worse than those of Batista

Who is the writer of that claim? A capitalist reactionary? An imperialist? A (neo-)fascist? A Batista ally? No. Gustavo Arcos Bergnes is Castro's fellow revolutionary, imprisoned with the future Líder Maximo in the mid-1950s. And he experienced Castro both as a fellow cell-mate and (twice) as a warden. Castro's violent revolutionaries of the 1950s were treated far more humanely by the dictator Batista than non-violent human rights activists are treated by Castro today, he says as he recalls getting special treatment (hospital rooms as cells, private cooking facilities, etc) and pardons after only 21 months. (Since Castro's coming to power, incidentally, there have been 20,000 summary executions, but — unlike Pinochet's 3,000 victims — these are not of any particular concern to "human rights activists")

• Che’s biographers consistently report that he sent thousands to the firing squad:

Che Guevara was one of the regime’s chief executioners during this period and is said to have acknowledged ordering "several thousand" executions. All took place without affording the victims fair trials and due process of law.

• The mass executioner's T-shirt adorns the very people who oppose capital punishment!

• Leftists: Don’t feed them after dark and don’t get them wet

In 1956, when Che linked up with the Cuban exiles in Mexico city, one of them recalls Che railing against the Hungarian freedom-fighters as "Fascists!" and cheering their extermination by Soviet tanks. (Humberto Fontava)

• Where Are the Mickey Mouse Ears?…

Nearly four decades after his death, the legend of Che Guevara has grown worldwide. In this new book, Alvaro Vargas Llosa separates the myth from the reality of Che's legacy, and shows that Che's ideals were a re-hash of notions about centralized power that have long been the major source of suffering and misery in the underdeveloped world. With testimonies from witnesses of Che's actions, Alvaro Vargas Llosa's detailed account of the "real Che" sets the record straight by exposing the delusion at the heart of the Che phenomenon. Vargas Llosa shows that Che's legacy—making the law subservient to the most powerful, crushing any and all dissent, and concentrating wealth under the guise of "social equality"—is not the solution to poverty and injustice but is the core of the problem.

• A la Cabaña, lorsque les familles rendaient visite à leurs proches, Che exigea qu'on les fasse passer devant le mur d'exécution maculé de sang frais

Oubliées, les purges, oubliées, les exécutions sommaires, le plaisir sadique des tortures: Che Guevara est un mythe, et un mythe ne peut être que parfait. … Fidel Castro sut exploiter les pulsions sacrificielles de son ancien compagnon en l'envoyant exporter la guérilla dans le vaste monde — et surtout, coupé de tout lien officiel avec le régime. Che Guevara finirait bien par mourir sur un champ de bataille ou un autre; resterait de lui son image inspirée et intemporelle, contrastant avec une dictature cubaine qui n'en finit pas de pourrir encore aujourd'hui. L'homme devint légende grâce à d'innombrables intellectuels de gauche cherchant à éviter l'erreur du soutien passé à Staline: mieux vaut rendre un culte à la personnalité d'un révolutionnaire mort qu'à celle d'un dictateur vivant. Son histoire fut soigneusement épurée et revue, les moments de gloire mis en avant et les périodes sombres gommées ou effacées. (Stéphane)

• C'était le moyen, pour Castro, de donner une image éternellement jeune à la révolution cubaine, alors que Castro et la révolution vieillissaient

Le statut d'icone de Che Guevara est une construction post-mortem, raconte Jacobo Machover dans son livre, La Face cachée du Che

• La victoire des barbudos a réveillé en l'intelligentsia française une vieille passion française pour la révolution

• Should we love Che Guevara?

• Che Was a Mainstay of the Hardline Pro-Soviet Faction

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system …
In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. (Paul Berman on The Cult of Che)

• Che Guevara in 10 Quotes

• Commemorating the Death of Che Guevara the Baf Way

• Che Guevara, Revolutionary and Icon

• Channeling the dead for affirmation

• ¿Quiénes son los revolucionarios verdaderos?

• And here I thought under Communism we were all supposed to dispose of our bourgeois pleasures and eat our spinach

• Gaddafi Is Starting to Be Compared to Che Guevara, Allende, and Other Leftist Icons

• Compare with Bin Laden's Death at the Hands of the U.S.: When a Cuban Dissident Is Killed by Havana, Only a Couple of French Readers Bother Reacting

• Ireland to erect monument to Che Guevara
One can imagine many places wanting to build a monument to El Che, but why would precisely Ireland step in to do that? Because Ernesto Guevara had an Irish ancestor, born in Galway in 1715 (and appropriately, perhaps, named Lynch).

How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State

I'm not a Donald Trump fan — far from it [update: this is something that will change, radically, after January 2017] — but don't you agree how sensational it is that Americans — that we all, all over the Western world (how lucky we all are!) — have vigilant East Coast politicians, along with vigilant European leaders and the vigilant members of the mainstream media, both in America and abroad, to warn us of all the threatening ways in which The Donald is akin to Adolf Hitler?!

Thank God we have these intelligent people to see that truth and to keep us duly informed!

After all, as Front Page's Daniel Greenfield points out (thanks to Glenn Reynolds and Ed Driscoll)… in 2012, we were lucky enough to be warned that Mitt Romney was akin to Adolf Hitler…

Just like… throughout the early 2000s, we were lucky enough to be warned that Dubya was akin to Adolf Hitler…

Just like… in 1980, we were lucky enough to be warned that Ronald Reagan was akin to Adolf Hitler…

Just like… in 2003 and in the early 1960s,  we were lucky enough to be warned that Arnold Schwarzenegger (in California alone) and Barry Goldwater, respectively, were akin to Adolf Hitler…

In 2007 and 2008, we were told that John McCain was one of the least extremist of the GOP's candidates — until Republicans dutifully chose him as the GOP's candidate, after which he too… became… Adolf Hitler.

Actually, it is not always, or not only, Adolf Hitler; it is also hateful, fear-mongering, dumb, and/or clueless (think of Sarah Palin).

Back in the 1950s, a World War II general was by sought by both parties for candidate to president. Until the day that Eisenhower chose to join the Republican party. Overnight, by the strangest of coincidences, the war hero became a clueless illiterate doofus.

Have you noticed something odd? All the(se) Hitlers happen, by the strangest of coincidences, to come from one party — the Republican Party.

You know — I hate to admit this — but sometimes I get the impression — I don't know why — sometimes I get the impression that calling Republicans Adolf Hitler is not a factual, objective, non-partisan observation but simply an automatic response by Democrats and Europeans alike arising as automatons in calling whoever is a conservative Americans a clueless, racist, and fascist being of the foulest of sorts.

But… not to worry; then I remember that the people making those calls (both in America and in Europe) are the most intelligent people who ever lived, the most compassionate people who ever lived, the most tolerant people who ever lived, the people most open to debate and discussion who ever lived, and then I know that I should refrain from entertaining such baseless suspicions…

Related: • Mitt Hitler and Double Standards
(Godwin's Law Applies to Thee, But Not to Me)
• The Only Good Woman Is a Leftist Woman
• Before Palin, Before Bush, Before Reagan,
It Was Eisenhower Being Called a Dunce by the Left
• America's "Irresponsible" President Is the “Chief Culprit of this War”

You know, America is always in danger of being overtaken by (neo-)fascists, we constantly hear, and listening to people like Barack Obama and/or his supporters, I have come to understand what it will take to avoid that dismal fate.

To avoid America becoming a fascist totalitarian state, the only logical conclusion seems to be that:

• The Republican Party ought to be outlawed and banned — once and for all
(or, conversely, the party should be either rendered toothless or filled with professional politicians who basically agree on most issues with the reigning Democrats)

• In effect, America should become a one-party state
(not to worry, it would be a one-party state with the intelligent, compassionate, tolerant members of the Democratic Party — and their counterparts in the at-best-now-toothless GOP — ever finding new ways to make life better for the people)

• Barack Obama should become president for life
(why not? isn't he the most intelligent man — the most intelligent being — to ever enter the White House?
Just look at how lucky, over the past seven years, Americans have been to have — finally — gotten:
as many laws and rules as the Europeans,
as many taxes as the Europeans, and
as many bureaucrats as the Europeans;
Just see how, thanks to the apologizer-in-chief's smart diplomacy, much safer the world is in 2016 than in 2008 (remember the crazy clueless cowboy at a time when no one respected America?!), with the Kremlin now tamed, Beijing no longer a threat to any neighbor, and the Islamists of the Middle East now embracing civilized values and engaged in showing mutual respect for the USA and the West)

• The — hateful — members of the (now defunct or now toothless) GOP should be barred from participating in elections…

• and, in order to understand all the good that Obama (or whatever member of the Democrat Party is in the White House) is doing for them, these hateful enemies of the people (isn't that the best expression for them?!) should be forced, for their own good (as well as that of their fellow Americans), out of American life and into reeducation centers; we're obviously talking about Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and everybody who would vote for them, as well as all people working at Fox News…

• And if that doesn't help, in order to get rid of their hatred and other mental disorders (such as religion or the insane belief and obvious lie that the ordinary citizen can get along fine through life without the intervention of the state's functionaries), these enemies of the people should be (more or less forcefully) committed to various mental hospitals where, even if their mental health is not improved, they will at least no longer pose a threat to the American population.

If all those things were to pass (if I understand correctly), then the United States will no longer be in danger of becoming a totalitarian state!

Update: Back in 2012, Newsweek Columnist Likened a Republican candidate's wife (!) — the "Insufferable" Ann Romney — to Hitler, Stalin (thanks to Ed Driscoll)

Update 2: Ed Driscoll himself:

 … every Republican presidential candidate, from Thomas Dewey (smeared as a Nazi by no less than Harry Truman) to the present will be attacked by the left in this fashion, no matter his temperament, or his small government, libertarian bona fides. … In his 1944 State of the Union address, FDR smeared the laissez–faire Coolidge era of the 1920s as “the spirit of fascism”

Update 3: Ed Driscoll, again — it even goes back to to 1940

Update 4: Heil Donald? Students instructed to compare Hitler to Trump by Fox News's Todd Starnes

Update 5: Joedator's New Yorker cartoon

Update 6: WikiLeaks reveals John Podesta's rule for democrats
(via Joe Biggs): "Compare Your Opponent to Hitler" …