Brought to you by….(I’ll let Hengler tell you.)
At a recent Campus Debate hosted by Young Americans for Liberty at Montclair State, Professor Grover Furr, the debater representing the liberal position, claimed that Stalin was not responsible for any deaths.
When asked by a student how many deaths would be necessary for the Communist experiment to work, Furr rejected the premise.
Listen to the smattering of applause he got when he answered, “what you said is bullshit! It’s wrong, it’s a lie!” He says he’s been researching Communist history for many years and has yet to find one crime that Stalin has committed.
CampusReform.org reported at FrontPageMagazine:
A Soviet weekly newspaper put the total dead as a result of Stalin’s repressions at about 40 million people. A recent book authored by Stanford Professor of History Norman Naimark even argues that Stalin committed multiple genocides.
“It’s a horrific case of genocide,” said Naimark. “In some cases, a quota was established for the number to be executed, the number to be arrested.”
Furr, who has authored several books on the topic of Marxism, also insisted that the United States has the lowest standard of living among industrialized developed countries.
Communists have been coming out of the closet ever since we elected a fellow traveler to the White House. See RebelPundit’s Post, Teachers Flock to Northwestern University for ‘Marxist Conference’ at Big Government for more on this disturbing phenomenon:
This Saturday, the Midwest Marxist Conference was held at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. The event was teeming with teachers who spoke about the new found bond between the radical socialists and their Teachers Union. The all-day event, which collected money to support Chicago Socialists and featured a communist bookstore, provided students on-campus along with the radical left community to plan the next phase in their activism.
Professor Furr contributed a comment to this “Stalin Debate” post at George Mason University’s History News Network website:
Nearly six decades after Josef Stalin’s death, a debate has erupted in Germany on how to evaluate the Russian dictator’s regime. It’s been triggered by a newly released book by a high-profile Eastern European historian.
In his book, Jörg Baberowski delivers plenty of material for debate about the controversial Russian ruler Stalin. But the historian himself is uncompromising in his analysis. The ruler, he argues, was a passionate and ruthless psychopath, a despot who killed according to quotas, sparing no one, who sowed fear, horror and mistrust in his immediate surroundings and subjected an entire society to a culture of destruction and terror.
In his evocative book, Baberowski makes a case for this thesis on nearly 600 pages, quoting a wide range of sources. “I have not written a book about the Soviet Union or about Stalinism but rather about excessive force and what it does to people,” said the author and professor of Eastern European history at Humboldt University in Berlin in one of his many packed lectures….
Baberowski is an unprincipled liar and falsifier. See my article, “Baberowski’s Falsification” (2010), at http://www.tinyurl.com/baberow…
[Note: I included original Russian text as well as translations. To read the Cyrillic you must change the character encoding on your browser to Cyrillis (Windows-1251), then change it back to display the German text correctly.]
How can Baberowski get away with deliberate faisifications like this? Reviewers and readers do not check his footnotes, many of which are to hard-to-find Russian materials.
Baberowski is also part of a larger group of anticommunist falsifiers, all of whom quote and praise each other, and all of whom use the same tactic: phony evidence through fraudulent footnotes.
Timothy Snyder does the same thing in _Bloodlands_. Phony “evidence” — the fraudulent use of footnotes to give the appearance of scholarship. In Snyder’s case the references are even more obscure: Polish books, instead of Russian ones, to document Soviet history; hard-to-find Ukrainian language sources, and so on.
IN the case of Baberowski, Snyder, and many others of the same ilk, there is a “tell”, a signal of their dishonesty: they make no effort even to appear objective. Their works are full of the shrillest anticommunist exclamations.
Bottom line: Baberowski, like Snyder and others, is a deliberate liar. This is true throughout his _magnum opus_ (until now), _Der Rote Terror_. But you can see how he works by studying my article (above).
It is significant that anticommunists have to lie about the Stalin period in order to make it look bad. Apparently they are unable to find anything that really happened and was “bad enough” for their ideological purposes — so they have to have recourse to lies and falsifications.
His comment was followed by four others who agreed with him. It makes me sick at heart to know that Communist operators like these cretins are influencing young skulls full of mush at our nation’s universities.
Communist atrocity deniers are even worse than Holocaust deniers because as Jeff Jacoby once famously wrote:
For pure murderous evil, there has never been a force to compare with Communism. The Nazis didn’t come close. The Holocaust was uniquely malignant – never before or since did one people construct a vast industry of death for the sole purpose of rounding up and destroying every single member of another people. But the Nazis exterminated 11 million innocents; the Communist death toll surpasses 100 million. Nazi power lasted from 1933 to 1945. The Communist nightmare began in November 1917, and continues to this day.
Savagery has always been a hallmark of Communism. It is an ideology that requires the destruction of human beings. “We have never rejected terror in principle,” wrote Lenin in 1901, “nor can we do so.”
Half a century later, even as he denounced the extremes to which his predecessors went, Nikita Khrushchev vowed that the terror so esteemed by Lenin would go on. “The questioning of Stalin’s terror,” he cautioned the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956, “may lead to the questioning of terror in general. But Bolshevism believes in the use of terror.” Not long afterward, Khrushchev sent 3,000 Soviet tanks to crush the Hungarian freedom fighters.
Communism equals murder. Everywhere. Always.
Watch and spread this video, Stalin, Man of Steel so that Communism’s murderous evil is never repeated.
In case you missed it, Obama’s press conference went off just as predicted – the lapdog media threw mostly softballs and didn’t challenge the president who gave his usual long winded answers.
This noteworthy exchange on Benghazi gave him a neat opportunity to demonstrate righteous anger at the way his loyal underling, Susan Rice is being treated by mean ol’ Republicans, transcript via NY Times Politics:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?
Video via Weasel Zippers
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.
But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.
You know what’s outrageous? No one followed up with the question; “okay then, who in your administration supplied her with the bogus intelligence?”
Oh, because that’s still “under investigation.”
They’re looking at the guy, for God’s sake.
And you know, we’re after an election now.
Nice – the same pissy thing he told John McCain during the ObamaCare summit in Feb, 2010, “the election is over, John.” Whenever someone questions this corrupt regime’s maneuvers, you see, it’s “politics.” Pissant.
I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I’m happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants. We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information. And we’ve got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress.
Here’s some questions he could answer right now, but none of the lapdogs dared ask it: What did you, Panetta, and Biden talk about during your 5:00 meeting on 9/11? What were you doing on the night of 9/11? Did you watch any of the attack as it was being livestreamed in the situation room? Those answers might be interesting. But instead we get to hear twaddle like this:
And I don’t think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that’s a problem. And we’ve got to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability. We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that.
But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose — if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity — the State Department, then I will nominate her. That’s not a determination that I’ve made yet.
I’ve got a problem with liars, and thus I have a problem with this entire regime.
And so does Lindsey Graham:
Lindsey Graham statement: "Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi."—
Alexis Levinson (@alexis_levinson) November 14, 2012
Graham statement (cont'd): "I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack. "—
Alexis Levinson (@alexis_levinson) November 14, 2012
BOOM. And that’s what one of our biggest RINOs is saying.
Ace: “Come After Me:” Obama Offers Rehearsed Tough-Guy Message on Benghazi, But Avoids Actual Answers:
Also: “the intelligence she received.” Passive voice. Why does he avoid saying who gave her the intelligence? It’s a shifty construction. If there was nothing amiss, he should have no problems specifying who gave her this “intelligence.”
You avoid naming names when you have something to hide.
He calls the exchange, “sick-making.” Everything about this President is sick-making.
WOW! Obama was confronted today by Ed Henry from FOX News if he “made an order” to save the heroes in Benghazi. —
He says he gave the order to “keep our people safe.”
** But he WOULD NOT ANSWER if he gave a direct order to save our men in Benghazi!!
It was the only meaningful question from the whole press conference.
The lapdog media was particularly timid this afternoon.
John Nolte, Big Journalism: Obama Presser: Chuck Todd Wins, Jessica Yellin and America Lose:
You would think that after eight months, the media would be loaded for bear when the opportunity finally arose to ask President Obama serious questions about something other than a campaign — especially in the wake of Libya, an anemic economic recovery, and the oncoming fiscal cliff.
You would think the media would want some — no — would demand some answers as to why for two whole weeks we were told Libya was the result of a video as opposed to a premeditated terror attack.
But if you think that, you don’t understand our media.
A few questions were asked about Libya — but really only two. One Libya question was really about the President’s willingness to stand by and support U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice after Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s said today they would oppose her being nominated for Secretary of State. Many, including myself, believe Rice was willingly trotted out on all the Sunday shows a week after the September 11 anniversary attack to lie about Libya not being premeditated.
To this question, Obama replied forcefully, challenging McCain and Graham to come after him instead of Rice. In other words, like he did during the debates, Obama used faux indignation as a defense against his dishonest mishandling of Libya, because this is something he knows his media pals will eat up. And eat it up they have.
Ben Shapiro, Big Government: Obama Press Conference: Stonewalls on Benghazi, Petraeus, Pushes Tax Hikes:
Today, President Obama held his first press conference in five months. It was a bizarre mix of softball questions from his press sycophants, false righteous indignation from the president over his administration’s Benghazi failures and lies, and an oddly blustery position shift on tax hikes as opposed to tax loopholes.
Obama opened his press conference with his usual patter about class warfare and the fiscal cliff, insisting on raising taxes first and foremost. Then a reporter asked him about whether he knew about the Petraeus investigation – or whether he should have known. “I have no evidence at this point that classified information was disclosed … there’s an ongoing investigation, and I don’t want to comment on the specifics of that investigation.” Obama then threw the ball to FBI Director Robert Mueller. Obama did say that “by his own assessment, he did not meet the standards” he needed to as director of the CIA. “It’s on that basis that I accepted [his resignation],” Obama added.
“We’re not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and that’s been our practice,” said Obama, ignoring his long history of meddling in criminal investigations including Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Trayvon Martin.
Washington Free Beacon: BEASTMODE: McCain: ‘That’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve ever heard’:
Sen. John McCain was asked Wednesday if there was a greater national security threat in the classified documents uncovered in the Petraeus scandal than in the Benghazi terrorist attack that killed four Americans.
Bear. not. happy.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: AYou called at it a show of passion, I would say it was his usual show of indignation, which is his default response whenever he feels defensive or backed into a corner. ‘How dare you attack my U.N. ambassador?’ And then he gives the strangest defense by saying she didn’t have anything to do with the Benghazi [attack]. Then why the hell are you sending her out there? Why didn’t you send out the Secretary of State, or the CIA Director, or [Secretary of Defense] Panetta or somebody, who did know?
And then he does play the sort of Lancelot defending the mistress in distress? It made Mitt Romney and the binders with women look positively feminist in comparison, this kind of patronizing attack on the two male Senators who would dare attack the girl, which what was intended in his tone. This is all the usual — you know, if you attack the pride, he’ll strike you on that. It was clearly defensive, and it was also a stonewall. I mean, after all, what she said was absolutely and completely misleading. Either inadvertently, in which case it’s complete incompetence or on purpose, in which case it’s deception. Then he basically, he took the bait on that and said, ‘Look, that wasn’t her speaking, that was me speaking. If you want to pick on somebody, pick on me.’
How can anybody pick on him or even question him, if he hadn’t had a press conference in eight months? You know, he clearly hasn’t been out there. He’s been hiding behind inquiries, behind investigations, and now behind Susan Rice. But now I think he’s out there, and he is vulnerable on this. I think he may regret having said that.
Video at link.
America Live with Megyn Kelly: Obama sends confusing message with Susan Rice comments:
President reveals White House sent out UN ambassador to address Benghazi attacks, but says she had ‘nothing to do’ with Libya probe
With Kirsten Powers who makes many of the same points Charles Krauthammer did- video at link.
Powers seems to have turned on this president over the Benghazi issue.
And you know….go back and read that statement from Lindsey Graham. Obama’s not getting any kind of honeymoon this time around. (Outside of his biggest fans – the MSM, that is.)