#15959
Malgus
Malgus
Survivalist
member8

I would have given the article more weight if it had not cited that Progressive piece of **** Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson ran for President on an “anti-war” stance. Then, he turns around and – in direct violation of international law and the Law of War – starts running munitions and war materiel to Great Britain using red cross ships and passenger liners, all the while maintaining the fiction of “neutrality”. A nation cannot maintain “neutrality” if it supplies war materiel and munitions to only one belligerent. It has to supply both, or none at all, or declare itself a combatant. The Germans had a great spy network in the US back then, and they knew damn well what we were up to. The newspapers, either pig-ignorant of what Wilson was up to, or complicit in the subterfuge, only blared “GERMANS ATTACK UNARMED RED CROSS SHIP! (or something similar)”. (This subterfuge was repeated by Wilson’s Golden Boy and Sec. Navy – FDR – later on when the US was again “neutral” in 1940 and ’41, complete with US newspaper propaganda).

The “last straw” came when the passenger liner Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk with great loss of life. Recent dives have confirmed that the Lusitania was indeed carrying multiple tons of munitions in her forward cargo hold – illegal munitions – which is why one puny German torpedo literally blew off the whole front of the ship, causing it to sink very rapidly, causing great loss of life. The cause of this great loss of life was “anti-war Progressive” Wilson and his scheming.

That this lying, two-faced Prog piece of dog **** is cited in the article as “that most academic of American Presidents” throws the rest of the article into serious doubt for me… it might be true, might not. But it left such a bad taste in my mouth after Wilson was mentioned that I disregarded the rest of the article.

The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1