Harry Truman became President of the United States in April of 1945, just prior to the fall of Germany. On May 7, 1945, less than a month after his inauguration, V-E Day was celebrated. Originally, Truman was resistant to appear at an international conference; however, postwar complications with the Soviet Union made it imperative that the President meet with the war Allies. Therefore, Truman, along with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill met in Potsdam, Germany in July to confer with other European leaders on the outcome of Europe after Germany’s unconditional surrender.3
Harry Truman became President of the United States in April of 1945, just prior to the fall of Germany. On May 7, 1945, less than a month after his inauguration, V-E Day was celebrated. Originally, Truman was resistant to appear at an international conference; however, postwar complications with the Soviet Union made it imperative that the President meet with the war Allies. Therefore, Truman, along with Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill met in Potsdam, Germany in July to confer with other European leaders on the outcome of Europe after Germany’s unconditional surrender.3
When President Obama goes off prompter, he usually tells truth … at least the “truth” as he sees it. Obama’s quote above not only reminds me of Karl Marx, the father of socialism and communism, moreover, his arrogant, anti-business, anti-capitalism screed reminds me of the words of Thomas Jefferson who wisely said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” Perhaps that’s why so many Marxists and socialists professors and liberal teachers are rewriting and revising history today, because they don’t want the voting public to be knowledgeable about the truth of history, politics and economics.
In writing about what historian David Barton calls “the five malpractices of modern history,” we formerly discussed Deconstructionism, meaning to overturn all the binary oppositions of metaphysics, and Poststructuralism, an idea marked by a rejection of totalizing, essentialist, foundationalist concepts such as the reality of truth or the will of God.
This article is a detailed and substantive analysis of a declassified Nazi report on German family and inheritance law compiled shortly after World War II by the American Office of Strategic Services Research & Analysis. Dated July 16, 1945, the document is titled, “Nazi Changes in the Field of Family and Inheritance Law” (R & A No. 3092).3 The report is divided into two sections: I. The Law prior to 1933; II. The Law since 1933. This division is significant for Adolph Hitler, who became the Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, even though his Nazi Party did not possess a majority of the votes. …
Throughout this article I will follow and augment the ideas, research and writings of scholars like Youngson, Bergman, Shirer, Stein, Bloom and Wiker, among others. I will particularly focus on their shared thesis that Hitler and the Nazis purposely and systematically revolutionized German law to facilitate application of Social Darwinist policies like eugenics, natural selection and survival of the fittest, and systematically applied these diabolical ideas to every conceivable aspect of German society. These facts will become particularly evident for application and purposes of this paper in my analysis of German and Nazi laws on marriage, family and inheritance law.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the legendary German theologian, was one of the central figures in two separate and complex plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler – Operation 7 and Operation Valkyrie. This hero paid the ultimate price in fighting against Nazism, fascism and the so-called “German Christian,” leading to his martyrdom at Flossenbürg concentration camp exactly two weeks before it was liberated by the U.S. Army 90th and 97th Infantry Divisions and three weeks before Hitler committed suicide inside his underground secret bunker in Berlin.
As the Supreme Court ended a tumultuous week of oral arguments on Obamacare, all of the legal and political pundits are scurrying around like ants, reading and rereading every word of the justices, dissecting every syllable, every verbal inflection; trying in vain to read the tea leaves, to deduce how the court, or more pointedly how the court’s swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, will decide the fate of the Obamacare mandate tax/penalty.
In a free society, can the federal government, under the pretext of economic and wartime conditions, unilaterally expand the parameters of the Commerce Clause to dictate what crops people can plant for their own use and how much they can plant? Be careful how you answer this question, dear reader, since your answer will not be heard by the sound you make from your voice (yes or no), but by the chains future generations will hear jingling from your wrists, ankles and rattling inside your mind.
I am not a conspiracist; however, during my 25 years of studying the Constitution, I’ve often wondered if there is an unseen hand, a shadow justice that controls how all justices on the Supreme Court reach their legal conclusions. Does an invisible justice exist that is neither appointed by the president nor approved by the Senate who dictates how they write their judicial decrees?
How did we get here? How did America so tragically betray its sacred promise to the world as a beacon of freedom symbolized by Lady Liberty standing proudly, holding her lamp aloft and beckoning the world to come to her majestic shores? To come to America for economic freedom, religious liberty: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …
“The corruption, crime, and incompetence of the D.C. government has been an embarrassment to our nation’s capital for decades. It is long past time that Congress restored the honor and integrity of George Washington to the beautiful city which bears his name.” ~ Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), speaking on the BOWSER Act “It is […]
Fifth Circuit’s Ruling against “Nasdaq Board Diversity Rule” Safeguards Meritocracy Over Mediocrity
“The evidence presented by Nasdaq in its rule proposal, contrary to its claims, does not show that board diversity provides better returns for shareholders.” ~Excerpt from a Manhattan Institute led amicus curiae brief in the case of Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment vs. SEC. “We will terminate every diversity, equity, and inclusion program across the […]
The Keep Nine Amendment: A Permanent Solution to Threats of Court-Packing
“I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court. If anything would make the court appear more partisan, it would be that. So, I am not at all in favor of that solution. Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a […]
Recent Comments