It is a political tradition to blame the previous party in charge for current negatives and rob them of the credit for the work they did that spring positives under their oppositions term in power. It’s the same result as taking credit for the enjoyable shade or fruits of a tree that the team you are against planted years ago, but blaming that other team for having planted the tree when you chop it down with lazy or improper accounting for physics and its fall damages property.
Joe Biden is not as talented. and his supporters are forced to make goofy stretches to attempt to blame Donald Trump for the Biden blunders happening in his first year in office. The highest profile disaster so far has been the Biden “cut and run” withdrawal from Afghanistan that handed over total control of the country to the supposedly evil-terrorist leaders we had been fighting for 20 years, left Americans stranded, left military dogs abandoned to die, and left billions worth of tanks and airstrike vehicles and guns and ammo for the new rulers to use against their people.
The typical stretch to blame Trump for all this has been that Trump is the one who set the 2021 withdrawal date from the country, “so there!”. This ignores the reality that Biden scrapped the Trump withdrawal date, all the negotiations and terms that went with it, and didn’t follow any of the Trump administrations guidelines for a tiered withdrawal plan that would have at least made an attempt to avert the obvious disasters mentioned above.
The newest theory from someone named Cheri Jacobus, a NeverTrump activist and Russiagate Hoax podcast producer is that Trump set a “booby trap” for Biden with that Afghanistan policy, that, er… Biden ignored and revamped and made his own and did not have to follow at all or in any of the ways that he did.
I've never seen a Twitter bio that fits more perfectly with an imbecilic tweet in my entire life.🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺 pic.twitter.com/NqKxqiR2a3
In case you missed it: Jacobus lists Trump and Mike Pompeo as being “enemies of America” along with Vladimir Putin in her baseless accusation that Biden’s horrifically mismanaged Afghanistan withdrawal actions were somehow a Trump/Russia collusion “trap”. No argument or explanation for the wild conspiracy theory, of course; she just tosses it out there to keep gullible minds connecting bad Biden moves to etherial Trump/Russia puppetry.
Sure, lady…
But the purpose is highlighting this insanity is to remind how thorough the Russiagate hoax peddlers continue to attempt to use this excuse, years after the Trump/Russia Collision conspiracy theory was investigated and debunked.
Last year, weeks before election day, Jen Psaki and Politico columnist Natasha Betrand helped spread the total lie that Russia was somehow behind tricking Americans in some way about the incriminating details found on Joe Biden’s son’s laptop.
Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say https://t.co/zRdHxTxVsl
The laptop was later verified to indeed have been Hunter Biden’s and it was revealed that the whole time Democrats and supposed “former intel officials” were claiming that its contents were Russian disinfo, Federal prosecutors had in fact been secretly investigating Hunter Biden for exactly the crimes he is shown admitting to and talking about (particularly international money laundering) in the contents of the laptop. But by then it was too late: Joe Biden had won the election, Hunter Biden received no punishment or prosecution, and Jen Psaki was hired as the Biden White House Press Secretary.
Retired Marine General James N. Mattis was Trumps first Secretary of War Defense but resigned in protest after failing to convince the President that he needed to blow up more countries. Now, the same Mattis who said we needed to keep fighting an 18 year long war, bomb more people, police more nations, ultimately resigned from the administration when it pulled troops out of Syria instead of following his advice to put more in, and now sits as a board member for General Dynamics (aka one of the largest defense contractors in the US) thinks President Trump is bad?… lol. Filed under “No freakin doy”.
Mattis has been laying in wait to come out against Trump in an effort to damage/prevent his reelection bid. He finally made his move in a public condemnation over Trump traveling across the street during a press conference to a church near the White House that was the victim of arson by “protestors” (cuz setting buildings on fire is an appropriate method of free-speech expression, right?) the night before. Mattis said he was angry and appalled, mainly over the Presidential security detail clearing protestors who were blocking the way and accused Trump’s message of unity in front of the victimized place of worship of trying “to divide us.”
About James Mattis
General Mattis was named President-elect Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense in December 2016, a month before the new administration was officially sworn into office. He was frequently referred to a “Mad Dog” Mattis, which the L.A. Times said was a nickname his troops gave him “behind his back” after the battle of Fallujah in 2004 where he reportedly ordered attacks on ambulances and aid workers, prevented civilians from escaping, and posed for trophy photos with the people they killed. Under his command, Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium reportedly had to be turned into a graveyard. Whether the troops meant the nickname of comparing Mattis to an insane animal as a compliment or not is disputed, but the nickname stuck and was used by Trump around his nomination time. Less understandable as “maybe they mean it as a compliment?” is his nickname as “The Warrior Monk”, alluding to his 40+ year long war related career and the fact that he has never been married.
I could find no record of any additional nickname alluding to the apparent laziness and alcoholism of both his eyeballs which sport obscene beer bellies.
Mattis appears to have been, during his military career and beyond, the sort of war loving military man that Hollywood thinks everyone in the military upper ranks is. In 2005 there were calls to discipline him for saying it was “a hell of a lot of fun” to shoot the Taliban, who “slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil.” Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) commented on that saying “We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life.” I disagree, because – it was the Taliban, after all, (and to be fair: CAIR is also designated as a terrorist organization by the UAE) but nevertheless, Nihad didn’t know how deadnuts spot-on he was when he described Mattis in exactly those terms. This Slate article on Mattis from 2010 depicts his attitude about using human beings as canon fodder to the degree that the dude is even against his men wearing helmets on their motorcycles cuz he only wants risk taking dudes ready to get hurt and die within his ranks. If you think that interpretation sounds exaggerated then you tell me what *you* gleaned from this portion of the piece:
Maintaining this culture of ferocity is why Mattis bristles about excessive hand-wringing over Marines who might want to ride without motorcycle helmets. Marines need to be risk-takers. That’s why the corps advertises at extreme sporting events. Ferocity is part of what the corps works to build in boot camp, and it is central to its storied history and traditions. If that’s the kind of spirit you need to fight wars, then you have to accept that the kind of person you want is going to sometimes ride at 120 miles an hour on a bike and hurt himself.
In and out of the Trump Cabinet
This history and “Mad Dog” approach to warfare made some question how well he would fit into Donald Trumps administration, which was promised during the campaign to be decidedly more anti-war than any of the previous Democrat or Republican administrations in living memory. The Mad Dog was portrayed as an anti-torture advocate who would bring a Trumpian aggressive attitude to a foreign policy that was decidedly non-aggressive in a sort of “speak loudly and carry a big stick, but leave that stick at your side until absolutely necessary” (paraphrase) type approach.
Turns out, the fit wasn’t so great.
Mattis finally left the administration in frustration over being unable to convince President Trump to escalate war rhetoric, drop more bombs, send more troops, or start any of the new wars he was looking forward to commanding from the White House. The last straw that caused him to resign in protest was when Trump, against Mattis’ reported wishes and advisement, and hopes and dreams of spilling more blood for no good reason, had US troops removed from Syria.
This made sense to Trump, whose approach to war is more practical, eg – along the lines of “defeat the enemy and get out”, while such an approach is an outrage to warmongers who see every excuse for conflict as a potential for more escalation.
We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.
Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing? Do we want to be there forever? Time for others to finally fight…..
I said on the day of his departure from the administration that he was biding his time to use some bullsh*t “Trump is bad for the American Way” appeal to Trumps base (well, specifically I predicted that he would just use “conservative appeals”) to try and peel them back into the hawks nest but I said it would likely come closer to the election. Indeed, that same month it was revealed that Mattis had explored a potential run for President to defeat Trump and Make America War-focused again.
“Shocker”… Mattis rebukes Trump in election year
While Mattis ultimately decided not to run against Trump in 2020, his commitment to seeing the President he served under get removed from office remains strong and he finally pounced this month, claiming that Trump is bad for “the Constitution” or something.
The statement had a bunch of tired talking points like Trump being -gasp – “divisive” (as if THIS was the big secret revealed) and referring to Trumps press conference that showcased St Johns church – an area landmark damaged by the fires that were part of the devastation from the riots “protests” the night before and continuing into the next day – as a “bizarre photo op” (“wtf is all this calling for peace crap??” he must have furiously exclaimed) and express outrage that the President said he would bring in the U.S. Military to protect and defend the country if the domestic terrorism didn’t stop.
Read this portion of his complaint and you can almost feel Mattis’ heartbreak at learning of such a crushing proclamation antithetical to everything he believes in regarding the countries armed forces – that his precious tools of death would be used, not as pawns in foreign countries, but on American soil protecting actual American citizens from harm.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens — much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
These checklists of outrages about “divisiveness” and “photo ops” (ie: every single thing a President does in public) are all obviously designed to blow a kiss to the corporate press already circulating those same talking points and try to lend them some seeming credibility from his stature as someone who loves killing people.
Not sure why Mattis thinks the Constitution contains the rights for mob gatherings to impede the travel of the President for any reason (I checked. It doesn’t) – even/including if it is for a demonstration in the street to showcase that you think racism and/or murder is bad. Given his history, he was also presumably super angry that only strictly non-lethal tactics were used to clear the mobs out of the way for the president to visit one of the sites their movement tried to destroy and tell the American people he would put an end to such destruction.
Of course the point of all this is to seize the opportunity to get the President some negative news coverage at a time when his leadership was doing way too well for comfort. While the corporate press succeeded in whipping up an international frenzy of hate and outrage causing violence (that the main anti-Trump fake-Republican group wasted no time cutting into ads) over the seemingly unjust killing of a black suspect in Minnesota during his arrest, the coverage doesn’t appear to be doing much to dent Trumps reputation. This wasn’t helped by the fact that the incident occurred in a Democrat city, under a Democrat mayor, by a Democrat union, and under a Democrat prosecutor, Democrat attorney general, and Democrat Governor, with Republican President Trump (the same guy who undid the worst damage from the Democrat crime bill of the 90s last year) being the only one who acted swiftly for justice in the situation.
While it was never a secret that Mattis, like others in the so called deep state coup participants, wanted Trump replaced with someone easier to convince into sending troops and bombs and bases and money around the world at pre-Trump levels in the Presidency again (whether that be himself or Joe Biden, or future Republicans running for office under a cloud of “see?? Trump lost and you will too unless you fall in line on war games”) this wasn’t common knowledge to the average observer and thus gave weight to the intended effect, which was “respected General turns on Trump”.
Whether any Conservatives at all who like the President will be duped by this charade remains to be seen (the Senates most Trump-critical Republicans, Lisa Murkowski (AK) and Mitt Romney (UT) both praised Mattis’ comments), but at the time of this writing is rather doubtful given the easy-to-reveal history of Mattis’ opposition for the platform of de-escalating violence that they voted for.
Trump haters, on the other hand are all in on this talking point, and Mattis citing the Constitution I guess makes them feel like they have some cover for becoming war shills in the name of justifying their hate for the President because he pens mean Tweets.
At the last minute before I published this post, I saw this tweet from Rich Higgins, a the former director for strategic planning in the National Security Council, making the following claim about Mattis:
I’ve noticed that the typical sources that are normally all too excited to “explain the news” to you are doing reporting on this issue that requires more back-story to make any sense. I suspect that this is the case because the details behind this story don’t fit a sensationalist narrative or partisan agenda. Whatever the case – Since I happen to have been following at least the base components at play, here is my Rich-plaination for y’all on the key points of what just happened and why…
Since 2011 there has been a Star Wars style “Rebels vs The Empire” war going on in Syria.
President Obama announced to the world that if that if the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against the rebels there (really dirty painful internationally illegal cruel way of killing opponents) then that would be a “red line”, implying a line that, if crossed would come with severe consequences.
As a direct response to this, the new Trump Administration launched missiles at a Syrian airbase. President Trump explained:
Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread of chemical weapons.
That announcement was made Thursday night from Trumps Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, where he is meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Many are scared about what this means for international policy while others (read: this guy) find it refreshingly badass to have a president working out of his Florida luxury resort where he pauses meetings with foreign leaders to announce that it didn’t take more than a day for the country he leads to follow up with a punishing military response to a country killing children and civilians with chemical weapons. More:
The U.S. fired 59 Tomahawk missiles from the USS Porter and USS Ross destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean against the Shayrat air base, where the U.S. says the planes that carried out a chemical weapons attack originated. The missiles targeted aircraft and aircraft shelters, ammunition, air defense systems and radars.
U.S. officials said planners did everything possible to avoid civilian casualties and are still doing battle damage assessment to determine the exact results of the raid.
Whether you too find this response refreshingly badass or not, you shouldn’t be scared about too much further foreign war entanglements. Trumps stated intentions are to curtail the spread of chemical weapons, so if Assad stops using them, there is no reason to believe there will be further strikes against Syria by the United States. That appears to be the deal.
Trump ran a non-interventionist campaign that was backed with promises to also not allow “red line” moments to happen under his watch. At the time of this writing, this test on those claims appears to have been passed.
It is a bad state of affairs when the Republican party’s best candidate is also the one virtually guaranteed to lose if he ever won the nomination. The awesome thing about Trump is that he is sticking it to the Republicans on their absolute worst issue in decades and he’s doing it in a way that doesn’t humiliate them for it. Democrats have a nasty way of smearing anyone who disagrees with them, while Trump is exhibiting exactly the right way to do something like this and attack the power structure, not the follower, in cases where appropriate.
“Obviously the war in Iraq was a BIG. FAT. MISTAKE.” – Donald Trump / majority of Americans, including Republicans.
First – notice the bias in this video by CBS on how they chose a thumbnail in where Jeb is smiling and Trump is frowning when the actual video shows an upbeat Trump absolutely demolishing Jeb. It’s not a photoshop or anything – Trump and Bush both made those expressions – it just isn’t a thumbnail that summarizes the content well at all. Take a look –
This is an amazing point in history because everything he said feels true – a majority agrees with it – but its kindov actually *not* true – but for the most part *is* true.
And that is the problem with Donald Trump… he opens himself – in a very GW Bush kind of way, coincidentally – to unfair attacks and smears on himself and his policies by begin factual on a subject but not entirely accurate on a specific word choice within that bubble. That gives enemies an opportunity to attack and not be non-factual when they mislead the public with an attack.
Specifically: The “Buh lied” trope has never been proven and doesn’t have strong evidence to support it. All accounts show that Bush and his top administration officials actually did – and had reasonable reason to – believe that they would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To an extent, they did find such weapons – but never the most scary that they claimed were likely being worked on or hoarded in the country. That lack of validation to their claims plus the objectively bad management of the war has made a clear “wasn’t worth it” label on the effort. It cost billions, slaughtered thousands of innocents, and hurt America. So Trump starts 100% right with saying it was a mistake and then veers off into iffy territory by saying Bush knew he was lying the whole time.
That’s the biggest problem here and with this guy in general: Trump, used the Democrat talking point that Bush “lied” us into war. Which is wrong, but not wrong in the way that matters, because its “basically” right… meaning – it’s directionally right, just not specifically accurate in the exact words used. And that appears to be Donald Trumps whole thing. Probably due to his background in real estate and Hollywood showmanship – he speaks far too casually and that is both his appeal and likely his downfall. He’ll say shit like “we had a beautiful time, it was tremendous – beautiful – absolutely stunning – and then after – we went out, we got some ice cream – it was a beautiful time” and lying liars will call him a liar because he actually got frozen yogurt, not ice cream. (*this is a made-up quote & scenario to illustrate the point, btw. we all know Trump would never get frozen yogurt and is 100% an ice cream man).
Imagine Donald Trump actually won the nomination (lol) and that he somehow won the election (like, if Hillary was caught on video or audio exhibiting all those stories about how nasty and mean she allegedly is to staff behind the scenes, for instance) – the media and his hack enemies would have a Scrooge McDuck moneybin’s wealth of fodder to lie about alleging “Trump lied” for saying things – exactly like this – that are “basically true” but require clarification. When other politicians do this, its called misspeaking, being imprecise, or in this case – just having one wrong opinion stated among 4 other facts about the subject. Doesn’t matter. Republicans need to wise up and learn the game or they will get crushed.
In this situation, however, Republican critics don’t know what to do because they want to hate Trump, but… he agrees with them on the most important issue of the past 18 years… The GW Bush led Iraq war was a bad move. Bush deserves blame at least, impeachment as a moderate compromise, and prosecution for war crimes at most. Trump takes the moderate position here amidst a larger anti-war stance and no one knows what to do.
Except Republicans that is. They like it. Republicans and independent Bush voters on whole never liked the war garbage. It was always a stain that had to constantly be defended and was never articulated well by the administration. That’s why Trump is getting support.. he is literally more liberal in all the best ways – in this case, being more anti-war – than his democrat opponent.
It’s an amazing thing to see. But a dangerous view of where it could lead.
I first heard that we won Vietnam on the ground but lost it in our government at home, years ago, but I never investigated and never fully believed it since it went against so much I thought I knew was just common knowledge about it. Watching this video is depressing. Usually I love finding out something I previously thought was wrong, because it’s a small accomplishment that shows progress (I heart accuracy). This, however, is not happy news. America had this conflict mure more in line than I thought I knew, and congress fucked it up to their forever shame.
More than a million South Vietnamese killed – not because we entered the war – but because of the way we left it. Horrific and inexcusable. And every movie I’ve ever seen a Vietnam scene in or a Vietnam veteran in makes it look like a drug filled slow conveyor belt to death for no reason.
More proof that I’m on a version of The Truman Show and that everything revolves around me came this afternoon when I saw FoxNews.com’s front page headlining the existence of a short clip of Anne Frank on Youtube, which is the only footage of her that exists. I’ve had an Anne Frank obsession the last week and a half that won’t end until I know every relevant detail there is to know (which is how these things go) and have been watching and reading as much I can.
Synopsis of the story: The Frank family knew shit was going down and started planning to go into hiding in the annex of Mr Franks business building (a company called Opekta which sold a kit to make home made jam). They had to bump up the move after eldest daughter, Margot Frank was sent a summons to report to a work camp. “Fuck that” was the obvious response, and the family moved into the annex attic that night, taking whatever they could carry without looking suspicious and wearing several layers of their clothes since they couldn’t be seen with suit cases.
They were joined shortly afterward in their hiding place by family friends Mr and Mrs Van Pels and their teenage son Peter. Later, their dentist and friend Fritz Pfeffer (see my companion piece to this post I wrote for BetweenShowers.com here) was added after in inquiring to Miep Giess, one of the office workers who brought the hidden families food and supplies, on a place to hide.
Anne’s father, Otto Frank was the only one to survive.
This is one of the few television interviews Otto Frank gave. Sitting in one of the rooms of the Secret Annex, he is talking about his surprise at the things Anne Frank wrote in her diary. Her thoughts on life, her self-criticism: this was not the daughter he had known
Things I learned that everyone should know:
-The “E” at the end of her name is not silent. Her name is pronounced Ann-eh. kinda like “Anna” but with an ehh instead of the “uh” sound an “A” makes.
-If only whoever betrayed the family (no one knows who made the anonymous call to the Gestapo that gave the tip) had waited a month, Anne and maybe more probably would have survived (Anne died one month before the camp was liberated).
DEATH:
-She suffered. Her last months were pain filled in every sense, starting with seeing her precious diary thrown away by the German police as they ransacked the attic and ending with her death among piles of sick, dying and bodies in the infirmary hut at the camp where she died 3 days after her sister.
-If Anne had known her father (whom she was closest to) were still alive, I bet she too would still be alive. When the family arrived at the camp, families were immediately forced apart into 4 groups: first the men and women were separated and then each split into either off-to-the-work-camp or straight-to-the-gas-chamber. One of Anne’s friends who ended up in a neighboring camp from her heard from Anne that she believed her father was put into the straight-to-the-gas-chamber group and died that night. She (accurately) believed her mother to be dead and her sister Margot died while Anne was taking care of her. Anne died 3 days later, evidence would suggest, because she just gave up. Her whole family was dead and there was no light at the end of the pitch black hell tunnel she was in, and she just let her illness claim her. If she had known her dad was alive, I believe she could have hung on those 4 more weeks to be liberated.
While getting some fillings done at the dentist, the assistant and he started talking current events. Politics where touched upon, but nothing ideological – just some reporting that they both have been hearing a lot of buyers remorse from people who voted for Obama and are disappointed that his promises about foreign policy, the war on terror and the economy were not fulfilled. The dentist said that the economy is headed down a path that is not likely to be revived soon without a war.
The effect a war can have on an economy is uneven. World War 2 (and not any of FDR’s economic policies) got us out of the depression for instance, but the war on terror helped nudge us in the opposite direction for instance. The reason is because in a situation like World War 2, the government issued mass production of war making devices. This can work as a quick pick-me-up, but unless its followed by a 1950’s era of continued production and growth, then all you’ve done is create a ton of jobs creating a ton of products that you then dumped in the ocean and blew up in the skies. Obama could do that today with any field. He could open a new government wing that will increase paper clip production by a million percent and that would bump the economy by creating jobs, but then slump it when we’re met with no way to profit from the paper clips.
My mouth was propped open with a dental damn over it and mental objects prodding around my Novocaine induced face, so my engagement in the conversation was limited to a Frankentien like eeehhhnnn uuuuhhhnnnn grunt here and there.
Then a 2nd assistant, sitting to chat with the 3 of us but performing no job at the moment chimed in on the heels of the dentists war comment…
“What’s really a shame is that Obama is going back on his promises about the war so now they’re just going to stay there longer and get depressed and killed and have a terrible time when they come home”. I gave the eyebrow signlanguage equivelent to a “wtf” as she continued.
“I think a lot of times they send people off to war just for population control. you know? its not the people making the war who have to go die in it, so I think thats just what they do”.
What in the sh#t? Luckily my mouth was JUST becoming free at that point, so I was able to issue a “no way” response and briefly explain how that theory doesn’t make any frigging sense. I couldn’t go nuclear on her because she clearly was not convinced of the charge herself, nor felt very passionate about it so I gave a reply equal to her initial statement. I’m guessing that she heard the claim made in a convincing way by someone who sounded like they knew what they were talking about, so she brought it up still thinking it was a valid observation.
It’s a frigging retarded observation.
The US population as of 2008 is 304,059,724 (roughly 3 hundred Million).
US casualties in Iraq as of June 2009 have been 4,300 (roughly 4 thousand).
If 4 thousand out of 300 million doesn’t sound like a large percentage, then you probably passed the 2nd grade on your first try. But to really see exactly HOW off base this theory is, you’ve got to calculate what % of our population has been exterminated in this alleged population control.
4,300 is 13 thousandths of 1% of 304,059,724.
In other words: .0000013% of our population has been killed in Iraq.
Does that sound like effective “population control” to you?… If so then you probably voted for Nader.
Did it never occur to these people that perhaps issuing cheap or free birth control, increasing abortion, federally legalizing euthanasia, speeding up wait time for inmates on death row, or restricting health care benefits to the elderly and drug addicted – MIGHT just be more logical, and definitely more effective measures of going about controlling the population? Think those suggestions are just a tad more prudent than risking a political career and reputation to make some shit up about why its a big deal that we have to go fight a war for some reason other than the REAL one which is to get our strongest, hardest willed men and women ages 18-30sent to their deaths, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the mean time to train and arm them… just so we can execute them. Really?…
UPDATE: Martin, from a UK e-mail address says:
Take your head out of your ass, its not only americans who die. It’s also not just people in Iraq. There are many other ‘wars’ happening all over the world.
Thanks for that 100% irrelevant notation that changes nothing (he’s just pissed that I used America – the country the person I’m responding to was talking about – as an example because he’s got hater issues).
Two weeks ago, Glenn Beck turned a Friday edition of his show into an hour long special titled the “War Room“, covering possible disaster situations and how we would/would have to/should deal with them. The full show is here below, and a decent watch, but if you’re only interested for purposes of the Colbert relation then hit play and then you can move along after the first minute.
Naturally, Stephen Colbert thought it was over the top and parodied it with his bigger, scarier alarmist special: the “Doom Bunker“. (go here if the video below becomes unavailable)
SO… in what is a unique occurrence – a parody reply to a parody reply – Beck parodied Colbert parodying HIM with Beck’s new faux segment with the shows “Fear Consultant” coming to him live from the “Doom Room” (a padded room within the Doom Bunker). I loled…
Black Holes are “crushingly dense sucking things, like giant Paris Hiltons”?…. Dude… Colbert’s been zinged with funnier writing…by FOX NEWS…..
A German brass band (including Hirohito on sousaphone and Mussolini on bass drum) marches through a small German town (where everything, including the clouds and trees, is decorated with the Nazi swastika), singing the virtues of the Nazi doctrine. Passing by Donald’s house, they poke him out of bed with a bayonet to get ready for work. Because of wartime rationing, his breakfast consists of stale bread, coffee brewed from a single hoarded coffee bean, and a spray that tastes like bacon and eggs. The band shoves a copy of Mein Kampf in front of him for a moment of reading, then marches into his house and escorts him to a factory.
Upon arriving at the factory (at bayonet-point), Donald starts his 48-hour daily shift screwing caps onto artillery shells in an assembly line. Mixed in with the shells are portraits of the Fuehrer, so he must interrupt his work to do a Hitler salute every time a portrait appears. The pace of the assembly line intensifies (as in the classic comedy Modern Times), and Donald finds it increasingly hard to complete all the tasks. At the same time, he is bombarded with propaganda messages about the superiority of the Aryan race and the glory of working for The Führer.
After a “paid vacation” that consists of making swastika shapes with his body for a few seconds in front of a painted backdrop of the Alps, Donald is ordered to work overtime. He has a nervous breakdown with hallucinations of artillery shells everywhere. When the hallucinations clear, he finds himself in his bed—in the United States—and realizes the whole experience was a nightmare. The short ends with Donald embracing a miniature Statue of Liberty, thankful for his American citizenship.
