Dennis Marks Borrowing A Page From The Joseph Goebbels Playbook

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie...".

This is why Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) hates this blog and desperately wishes it was gone. Because Dennis tells big lies, while The Truth About Dennis Marks slaps them down.

Concerning Dennis' Big Lies, one of them concerns this blogger defending, having as a hero, or worshipping brutal mass-murdering murderous dictators. First it was Joseph Stalin who was my "hero" and whom I "worship". According to Dennis I was "caught praising" Stalin. Of course this accusation is complete and total bullshit.

Now Dennis posts lies concerning things I never said concerning Mao Tse-Tung, the Chinese Communist revolutionary and the founding father of the People's Republic of China (which he governed as Chairman of the Communist Party of China from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976). This would be the dictator who perpetrated systematic human rights abuses and was responsible for an estimated 40 to 70 million deaths through starvation, forced labour, and executions - ranking his tenure as the top incidence of democide (murder by government) in human history. (excerpted from Wikipedia).

Dennis Marks: [Dervish Sanders is] the same guy who defended Maoism with claims that Maoist rule prohibited police brutality. And of course he uses the phrase "the people" all the time when referring to the tiny group at the top of government, borrowing a page from Red China. (7/23/2015 AT 6:25pm).

Here is another example of Dennis lying his ass off concerning me and Mao.

Dennis Marks: ...you can also remember WD's defense of Mao worshipper Van Jones... in which WD equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I did look it up, and police brutality under Mao was, by the numbers, worse than anything in history. (7/13/2014 AT 2:55am).

Again, total bullshit. With the exception of the last line. But everything Dennis claims about me is a big BIG Lie. It is true that Mao came up in a discussion regarding Van Jones. And I did mention police brutality. But what I told Dennis was that Van Jones belonged to a group that read the writings of Mao and also protested police violence.

Wikipedia/Van Jones/Earlier activism: When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington DC, and moved to San Francisco instead. He became a member of a "socialist collective" called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) that protested against police brutality.

Van Jones (as a member of STORM) protested police brutality. The Maoist rulers of China (1949-1976) engaged in police brutality. I never said otherwise, you lying sack of shit!

Wikipedia/Mao Zedong/Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution/Paragraph 4: The authorities allowed the Red Guards to abuse and kill opponents of the regime. Said Xie Fuzhi, national police chief: "Don't say it is wrong of them to beat up bad persons: if in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it". As a result, in August and September 1966, there were 1,772 people murdered in Beijing alone.

Anyway, regarding STORM, Conservapedia says...

Conservapedia/Van Jones/Maoist Influence: STORM's own literature describes its "Maoist orientation" which conducted "a group reading of Mao's On Practice and On Contradiction". The group studied Lenin's theories of the state, revolution, the party, and "the political ideas of Mao Tse-tung".

Now, I don't know how much stock I place anything on Conservapedia... and their Van Jones page is basically a smear of the man... but I couldn't locate the info anywhere else.

In any case, how into the writings of Mao was Van Jones? That is information that is (apparently) lost to the ages. Van Jones' own website only addresses the rumor that he (presently) is a communist (and says nothing about Mao).

[Question] Are you a communist? [Van Jones answer] No, I'm not... For the better part of a decade, I've been the No. 1 champion of free-market solutions for poor people and the environment. ... Some people experimented with drugs and alcohol, I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older. (The Truth About Van Jones).

So, there you have it... Communist or Maoist, Van Jones moved on a LONG time ago. He is now a champion of the free market. Point is, I never defended Mao and I never equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I only pointed out to Dennis that Van Jones absolutely is not a "worshipper" of Mao (presently) and that STORM protested police brutality (when Jones was a member).

And, FYI, I never defended Van Jones either (in regards to his past). I don't have enough info regarding what happened. Not that it matters, as it is in the past and Van no longer holds those views (whatever views he held).

I also never use the phrase "the people" when referring to the tiny group at the top of government. Those people are our representatives. The People are the citizens of the United States, you idiot! Also, The People, which IS a phrase I use, is a reference the opening phrase of the Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Dennis knows this (how could he not). Yet he lies away. Because that is just the kind of a-hole that he is. But this is hardly new information. Many people have known this about Dennis for quite some time... although most seem to ignore it for some reason. I refuse.

An example of dmarks' being an a-hole? I pointed out to him that I never defended Mao, and his response was to say "I'm glad Mr Sanders has done a 180 on this issue...". Although he surely was (and is) an a-hole to lie about me defending Mao in the first place.

Image Description: Mao, NOT a hero of the Left, despite lies from scumbags on the Right like Dennis.

TADM #75

Vile Liar Dennis Marks On Those Who "Cheered Them On" (Them Being Hamas and ISIS)

As the readers of this blog know, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is an a-hole who loves to concoct viscious, vile and utterly ridiculous lies about those he hates. Here he lies about some Jewish people he hates "cheering" for terrorist organization Hamas as well as the jihadist group ISIS, which seeks to overthrow the government "democratically elected" after former preznit bush illegally invaded Iraq...

Dennis Marks: If humans became extinct, it could also be because groups like Hamas and ISIS ultimately became very successful, while those who should have known better ...ranging from Norm Finkelstein to Francis Boyle to WD ... cheered them on as they acted like a sort of political/military Ebola. (8/17/2014 AT 05:31:00 AM EDT).

And, as you see, he throws me into the mix as well. I'm also one of those who "cheer" for Hamas and ISIS. That is, along with two Jews that Dennis really hates. But this is the kind of vile crap one can expect when dealing with the anti-Semitic and racist scumbag known as Dennis; Black people are "racist" (with other Black people or Whites as their victims) and Jewish people are "anti-semites" (with their fellow Jews being the ones they wish to exterminate).

That is how I got labeled a "racist" by this dirtbag; it was due to my support for Affirmative Action, a program that discriminates against Whites, in Dennis' racist mind.

As for cheering on groups that hope to get their way through fear and murder, I think it goes without saying that I absolutely oppose such tactics (terrorism). But Dennis is a sick lying f*ck who ALWAYS resorts to vile (and nonsensical) lies when confronted with anyone who disagrees with his virulent stupidity.

In this case, my disagreement with Lester in regards to his Muslim bigotry... or I think this latest interjection (into a discussion that had nothing to do with terrorism) was prompted by me calling out Lester for bigotry that had him calling for Muslims to denounce their prophet... and for being "infested" with fleas and lice.

Or it could simply be more of the same, in that these vile lies from Dennis have been spewing from his dissembling maw for some time now (lies concerning me "praising" Stalin, being another example).

TADM #54. See also SWTD #269.

Dennis Marks: King Canardo & Old Bones Champion

Acorn-Style (Old Bone/Canard #1)

"Old Bones" is the term Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) likes to use when he wants no dissent to his tired old lies. For example, Dennis recently brought up the long-debunked nonsense concerning ACORN participating in "election theft".

Dennis Marks: [The Koch Brothers] haven't tried to suppress in real vote. But those who engage in and support election fraud (ACORN etc) are understandably defensive when people try to end their crimes. (7/12/2014 AT 04:10:00 PM EDT).

Dennis is referring to "crimes" that ACORN was cleared of by Congress.

The Seattle Times: The Congressional Research Service says in a new report that it couldn't find any instances in which people improperly registered to vote by the activist group known as ACORN showed up at the polls on Election Day. The report also found no instances in the past five years of the group misusing federal funds. Both houses of Congress voted to cut off money to the group after the release of videotapes showing employees advising two conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute. (Congressional report clears ACORN of voter fraud by Jonathan D. Salant, 12/24/2009).

After my comment disputing the Dennis' canard concerning the Koch's "ending of crimes" by a community organizing group that "filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on November 2, 2010, effectively closing the organization", Dennis responded with ad hominens and further canards...

Dennis Marks: I see WD is frying up old bones in canardo oil. In a kettle heated by his own pants-on-fire. I am not interested in a taste of this sordid brew. The record and facts on ACORNs voter fraud racket, and the Koch Bros' lack of any voter suppression are well established. (7/12/2014 AT 11:08:00 PM EDT).

Dennis was the one who brought up the "old bone" canard of ACORN being involved in "election theft", not I... yet this fool has the audacity to accuse me of "frying up old bones in canardo oil".

If anyone's pants are on fire, they are the pants of the lying Dennis. And, as we know the term "old bones" is an ad hominem Dennis brings up when someone calls him on his bringing up old topics and spinning his old canards in regards to them (TADM #49). Old canards he demands go unchallenged... because he can't handle the cognitive dissonance such challenging (with FACTS) produces in his addled brain.

Pro-Khmer Rouge Views (Old Bone/Canard #2)

And the exchange above is but one example of why Dennis is surely the King Canardo as well as the "old bones" champion. But that isn't the end of the "old bones" hypocrisy! A few hours prior to Dennis accusing me of "frying up old bones in canardo oil" he posts the following old lies on the blog of Willis Hart (in response to a blog post about yours truly titled "On the Assertion that Bowles-Simpson is a Conservative Plan").

Dennis Marks: Don't forget his defense of Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views. You left out one of the extremes. (7/12/2014 AT 3:30 PM). Dennis Marks: ...you can also remember WD's defense of Mao worshipper Van Jones..in which WD equated Maoism to ending police brutality. I did look it up, and police brutality under Mao was, by the numbers, worse than anything in history. (7/13/2014 AT 2:55 AM).

Note that the hypocrite submitted that first "old bone" to Willis' blog a few hours before he made the "frying up in canardo oil" comment, and the second one was submitted a few hours after.

As for the comment concerning "Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views", this is an old bone Dennis has been gnawing on for years... as this comment from 2012 shows...

Dennis Marks: Noam Chomsky is a real piece of work. I recently dug into his writings in which he revealed himself to be just about the only person in the civilized world who supported Pol Pot's "Killing Fields" genocide. (1/18/2012 AT 7:17am).

But Noam Chomsky never supported "Pol Pot's Killing Fields genocide". Michael Brull, writing for "The Drum", says "the boring truth about Chomsky [is that] he does not support Pol Pot". [What he did do was say] that the US had no right to invade a country on the other side of the planet to install its own preferred puppet government... (Source: The Drum website. "The Drum" is an Australian enterprise).

Chomsky, in other words, focused his criticism on HIS OWN government... because as a US citizen and journalist, it was more likely he could get his own government to listen than the Cambodian government to listen (BOTH governments were killing Cambodian citizens).

Both regimes were killing Cambodian citizens, but Chomsky felt that those who focused on the atrocities of Pol Pot were doing so in order to provide cover for OUR government's atrocities against the Cambodian people.

Between 1970 and 1973, during the Vietnam War, the United States bombed much of the countryside of Cambodia and manipulated Cambodian politics to support the rise of pro-West Lon Nol as the leader of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge used the United States' actions to recruit followers and as an excuse for the brutal policies they exercised when in power. (Source: The Holocaust Museum Huston website).

This is why Chomsky is attacked by the Right (and these vile lies told about him)... because he had the audacity to speak against the US government's bombing of Cambodia (Nixon's Cambodian Campaign).

It was the United States bombing of Cambodia under then-president Nixon that gave rise to the Khmer Rouge and THAT is why the Right attacks and lies about Mr. Chomsky. Not because he ever supported Pol Pot, but because he spoke against our bombing of Cambodia.

To say that Chomsky supported genocide is a canard, and, in regards to Dennis bringing it up - and lying about my "defense of Noam Chomsky's pro-Khmer Rouge views" - it is an old bone that is a huge canard.

So I never defended Mr. Chomsky's "pro-Khmer Rouge views" - because HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY!! And for this reason (as well as the other canards and old bones discussed above) I crown Dennis Marks the king canardo and the old bones champion.

TADM #50. See also SWTD #266.

Vile Lie Concerning Russ Feingold From Dennis Marks, Then Cognitive Dissonance When He Is Confronted With the Truth

That former WI Senator Russ Feingold wants abortion doctors to be able to murder babies is a vile lie Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) clings to.

Dennis Marks: Feingold has a lot of statist, anti-liberty views, including his support of abortionists killing already-born US citizens without any due process. (7/4/2014 AT 7:38:00 PM EDT). Dennis Marks: Here is a transcript where Feingold says killing a born child is up to the "doctor". Yes, Santorum has out of the mainstream views on this issue, to say the least. But so does Feingold. (7/5/2014 AT 10:04:00 AM EDT). Dennis Marks: The [Russ Feingold/Rick Santorum] situation involved a born child (a legal US citizen under the constitution). This is the extreme, and unpopular one, of the abortion debate. If the government wants to appoint abortionists as ad-hoc executioners of American citizens, lets see legislative action and the appropriate judicial review in relevance to due process, etc. (7/5/2014 AT 05:21:00 PM EDT).

Dennis refers to an exchange between Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) that took place on the Senate floor on 9/26/1996 in which the Religious Right Nutjob Santorum puts forward a ridiculous scenerio in which, during the performance of a late term abortion, the head of the baby "slips out". This is, of course, would mean the baby was born; and abortions, as we all know, only take place before birth... by definition.

A "surgical method for terminating a pregnancy" can't apply to a woman who isn't pregnant, which she is NOT once the baby is born. Also "removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus" can't apply since a born baby can't be "removed" from the uterus.

Anyway, what Dennis objects to Feingold's reply...

Senator Feingold: I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate.

Do a Google search for this statement and you will find it spread across the interwebs far and wide as "proof" that the former Senator supports murdering babies (just as Dennis claims).

Problem is, Dennis' link contains another transcript of an exchange between Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and NRLC president Douglas Johnson took place in a joint hearing between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, on 3/11/1997. And those remarks make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that Senator Feingold does not think doctors should be allowed to kill babies once they are fully delivered (born).

Russ Feingold: Once a child has been born, there is no conceivable argument that would suggest a woman's life or health would any longer be at risk or an issue. This distortion of our exchange is the kind of tactic which undermines efforts to reach an agreement that would ban late-term abortions, except for the most narrow circumstances where a woman's life or health was at stake...

That sounds pretty definitive to me. "No conceivable argument". Why he did not say this during the earlier exchange with Santorum, I don't know. I suspect it might have been because he was thrown for a loop due to the ridiculousness of the nutjob Santorum's setup. During the performance of an abortion, has a baby EVER been "delivered accidentally" because "the head slipped out"? EVER?

I mean, late term abortions usually involve vacuuming out the brain and crushing the skull in order to make the fetus easier to remove. In which case it is dead, regardless of the head "slipping out" or not. If the fetus "slips out" and is alive... then it is born and killing it then would be murder. Unless it is going to die shortly (for whatever reason) and killing it would be an act of mercy. I would be supportive of that. But, that specific situation was never discussed. Santorum was, I presume talking about a viable birth (AKA "slipped out").

In that situation Feingold is clear (in the later exchange)... there is "no conceivable argument".

In any case, as I said, the Feingold quote that "proves" he supports infanticide can be found in many places on the interwebs; and most of these pages do not also include the second "no conceivable argument" quote. Strange that Dennis would make his tired claim about Feingold saying that "killing a born child is up to the doctor" AND link to a page that DISPROVES this.

So, what happened when I pointed out to Dennis that his own link disproved his claim that Feingold has "support of abortionists killing already-born US citizens without any due process"? Extreme (and hilarious) cognitive dissonance...

Dennis Marks: I hear the sound of old bones being knawed, and... this time, turn away. (7/6/2014 AT 05:55:00 AM EDT).

Dennis turned away because his mind couldn't handle the conflicting information. This, by the way, is the CLEAREST case of cognitive dissonance I have ever witnessed! Although, instead of pointing out the cognitive dissonance and laughing at Dennis, I said "you're the one who dug up the old bones! Now, having been called on doing so, you're running away".

An opportunity missed that I regret. Although, if I pointed out Dennis' cognitive dissonance the blog proprietor (this conversation took place on the blog of one rAtional nAtion uSA) may not have published my reply... as this "rational" fellow has a habit of rejecting comments he does not like.

A coping mechanism of his own to prevent any uncomfortable cognitive dissonance? Perhaps.

Supporting Documents
[DSD #6] Feingold's Views, Which Are Pro Infanticide (April 16 to April 20, 2012).
[DSD #7] Russ Feingold View Of Special Rights To Abortionists To Butcher Live Born Americans.
[DSD #17] Anti-Choice Extremism. (A catalog of many radical anti-choice comments from dmarks).

TADM #48

1000 Percent Stupidity of "Joke" Involving Eurasian Georgia Eliciting A Lengthy Reply

The topic being responded to was John McCain calling for "for the faster integration of Georgia and Moldova into the structures of NATO amid the ongoing crisis in Ukraine's Crimea region", and the dummy know as Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) decided to reply with the following "joke"...

Dennis Marks: Might save Atlanta from being burned again, though. He might be onto something. (7/6/2014 AT 4:40am).

"Mistaking" the country for the US state is fricking hilarious. No, it actually is not, which is why, when I read this comment a few days ago, I ignored it. A dumb joke is not worth mentioning on this blog, although Dennis apparently did think I would notice and be "fooled" into thinking he actually had made a mistake and mixed up the two Georgias.

I know this due to the following exchange that took place after Dennis told his "joke"...

Another blogger: There is the Georgia of rednecks packing heat (in the heat) and there is the Georgia that gave birth to Joe Stalin. The latter is crawling with Chechens. You know, the guys that bombed the Boston Marathon. Both Georgias are quite similar, IMO. (7/6/2014 AT 1:00pm). Dennis Marks: BB: I know, I know. I was just tossing some red meat to Capt. Canardo so he can make a few thousand-word blog posts about how I don't know of former Soviet Georgia :) (7/6/2014 AT 3:26pm).

Now, did Dennis, when he initially make the joke, actually think I'd reply with a lengthy post in which I went on about Dennis' stupidity in regards to his "mixing up" the two Georgias, or is he simply covering for a "joke" that fell flat. Who knows? Either way the "tossing of red meat" line is pure stupidity. As is the claim that this "red meat" could elicit a 1000 word reply from me.

I've never written a 1000-word blog post and Dennis knows it. Although I know he exaggerates, again as another "joke", I suppose. A joke Lester Nation is eager to go along with.

But that isn't the end of the "hilarity" from the dumbshit Dennis. What comes next is a lot worse than telling a bad joke and then lying about why you told it and possibile (imaginary) responses it might elicit...

Dennis Marks: I've even seen people on the Left bash these states because (supposedly) more poor people are in them. I guess they would rather the states kick the poor people out or kill them off in order to improve their standings. (7/7/2014 AT 5:16am).

Dennis, which his lie about "bashing" of Red states and kicking out/killing poor people to improve standings refers to posts like this one and this one.

The second link is to a commentary from me in which I discuss how the South voting Republican has led to lower wages in that part of the country. The only "bashing" is my questioning of the wisdom in voting for your wages to be lower (which is what GOP lever pullers are doing in selecting candidates to represent them who then pass right-to-work-for-less legislation).

The answer is to vote Democrat and allow for unions. The answer is NOT to kick poor people out of these states or to KILL THEM.

Kill them? Yeah, Dennis really did write that "the Left" might want to kill poor people. I guess getting them to help themselves by convincing them that right-to-work is bad is a concept so foreign to Dennis that he can't concieve of it.

Foreign to him because the situation in which employers can pay as low a wage as possible is one he cheers. No, the despicable Dennis does not specifically want to kill poor people, but he does want them to stay poor.

Because if they're poor as a result of working for low wages the plutocrats benefit. No higher taxes on the oligarchs in order to pay for the Medicaid expansion (which Southern states have largely rejected) and no living wage either.

Both of which mean our wealthy overlords get a bigger piece of the pie. Even though this means poor people might die in larger numbers (from undiagnosed/treated medical conditions, higher rates of depression leading to higher rates of suicide, etc).

But Dennis has no problem with any of that. What's important is keeping poor people working for as little as possible so the already-wealthy can get even richer.

And that is something that truly disgusts me. And something I find worthy of a post. Unlike Dennis' stupid "joke" involving mixing up the two Georgias followed by a lie about the "joke" fooling me into writing a lengthy reply.

Classist moron.

TADM #46

email To An Anti-Semitic Racist Lying Sack of Shit Know As Dennis Marks

More lies from the scumbag anti-Semite racist Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) published on the blog of Willis Hart. Why? Because the a-hole knows he can get away with his outrageous dissembling on this blog. Fact is, most of the regulars on "Contra O'Reilly" snarf up Dennis' crap with great enthusiasm.

Dennis Marks: Dude has started to email me private love letters too. I read the first one (antisemitic crap in which he defended someone who wanted to get all the Jews out of Israel). ... I set the email spam filter to move it down the sewer. Easy to do in email clients. (6/23/2014 AT 4:31am).

First of all, let me say that me referring to Dennis as a anti-Semite and a racist is NOT ad hominem. These assertions are both factual, and I've produced the evidence to back them up (here and here). Secondly, let me say that Dennis lies. I've never emailed him a single "love letter". Not one, let alone one that contained "antisemitic crap". That is Dennis' purview.

As usual, however, there is a small kernel of truth at the center of Dennis' novella of confabulation. I did send Dennis an email. It was in regards to a ANOTHER comment he shat out on the blog of Willis Hart. Another comment in which he lied about yours truly.

Dennis Marks: Yeah, to be a "moderate" to WD you would have to be someone like "frances" Boyle, and advocate wiping out the Israelis. (6/14/2014 AT 7:25pm).

Frances Boyle (or Francis Boyle, which is how the man actually spells his name) is a Irish-American man that Dennis has accused of being anti-Semitic, along with the Jewish-American Norman Finkelstein. For the following reason...

Dennis Marks: Forget his genocidal hatred of Jewish Israelis. This man is one of those Holocaust-deniers. The kind of person WD defends, probably with the usual "calling people who dare criticize Israelis antisemitic" canard..... Yeah, these people are antisemitic because they criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens (12/8/2012 AT 7:25pm). screengrab.

Neither Mr. Boyle nor Mr. Finkelstein are Holocaust deniers. In fact, the parents of Mr. Finkelstein (to whom Dennis specifically directed this vile comment) are Holocaust survivors! Finkelstein's mother "grew up in Warsaw, Poland, survived the Warsaw Ghetto, the Majdanek concentration camp, and two slave labor camps" and his father "was a survivor of both the Warsaw Ghetto and the Auschwitz concentration camp".

Now, it is true both Boyle and Finkelstein are strong critics of Israel. And Boyle (unlike Finkelstein) holds anti-Zionist views. However, while someone who has anti-Zionist views might be anti-Semitic as well, I do not believe that this is ALWAYS the case. I certainly do not believe applying the "anti-Semitic" label to a Jewish person simply because they are critical of Israel is reasonable.

But Dennis goes EVEN FURTHER than "simply" slapping on the anti-Semitic label (to a Jewish man) just because he's critical of Israel. He Obviously subscribes to the nonsense known as "new antisemitism", which equates ANY criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitism".

However, I agree with the critics who "argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of anti-Semitism, and exploits anti-Semitism in order to silence debate".

This describes EXACTLY what Dennis is doing... conflating, attempting to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and trivializing the meaning of the meaning of anti-Semitism. And on top of that Dennis adds a VILE lie about Boyle and Finkelstein wishing their fellow Jews to be murdered in a new Holocaust. Frankly, that is the comment that convinced me that Dennis' views cross the line into anti-Semitism. There is simply NO excusing such a despicable fabrication, in my strong opinion.

And it was Dennis' defense of Nixon's Southern Strategy, btw, that convinced me beyond a doubt that the slimeball is a racist.

For the record, the email I sent to Dennis was to dispute his assertion that I referred to Francis Boyle as "Frances". This is an old lie that has become quite tiring. Fact is, it is Dennis who misspelled "Francis" and "Frances". And I also nailed him on getting Francis Boyle's gender wrong! (6 "shes" and 5 "hers" to be exact... see swtd-233 for more information).

So, given that Dennis did not even know Boyle's gender, I did NOT take his criticisms seriously. Also not to be taken seriously is Dennis' claim that I defended Boyle's or Finkelstein's anti-Zionist views. Fact is, I repeatedly said I did NOT agree with them or Finkelstein's views on "Holocaust exploitation". Both go quite a bit too far for me.

I've repeatedly related to Dennis my disagrement, but he ignores me and lies about me "defending" anti-Semitism anyway.

I did say that the Jewish Boyle never advocated "wiping out" Israeli Jews, which he has not. But pointing out factual information is "anti-Semitism" in the scumbag Dennis' deluded imagination and the lies from this sack of shit never stop.

Finally, I only sent Dennis ONE email. Dennis says he "read the first one", implying there were others that followed, but there was not. I only sent one. Why? Because I could not respond on the blog of Willis Hart due to his banishment of me. So I shot him an email to let him know I'd seen his lie.

I didn't send any others, nor will I, given that the fecally obsessed Dennis "set the email spam filter to move it down the sewer".

Update 10/24/2014: Dennis read this post and decided to delete his anti-Semitic comment I quote above. If you click the first link you will see a message that says "This comment has been removed by the author". Click the second link for a screenshot of the comment that I saved before the deletion. btw, I did not use photoshop to create a fake comment, even though Dennis has previously accused me of "fabricating" comments.

Not that I think Dennis would deny making this comment, as, in his view, he's "calling out anti-Semitism" by making this vile accusation against a Jewish man. The reason for the deletion was not that Dennis realized it was anti-Semitic and got embarrassed when I linked to it, but because he finds deleting comments when I link to them "amusing".

 tadm-37 

On Dennis Marks & Barbara Lee

Barbara Jean Lee, the U.S. Representative for California's 13th congressional district and a Democrat, "gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote NO on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president" (blurb via Wikipedia).

Because of this, Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) remarked "Lee is the one who voted like the Taliban slipped her a check. She is also a devout racist" (comment from the blog "Contra O'Reilly"; made on 1/11/2014 at 4:28am).

Correction: the "Taliban slipped her a check" was due to her AUMF vote; and the "racist" crack was due to... who knows? I'm going to guess it's because she's Black. Whenever Dennis accuses someone of racism, it seems as though they are always Black. I certainly cannot think of an example of him calling a White person a racist (except for David Duke, and that's a no-brainer).

In any case... Barbara Lee deserve mucho kudos for being the ONLY one who recognized the FACT that the AUMF granted WAY to much power to the president. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and with the AUMF Congress ceded it's power to the president (who then abused it and started two illegal wars, one with a country whose leader was an enemy of bin Laden).

TADM #32. See also SWTD #244.

Dennis Marks Sez Ron Paul Speaks With One Voice Alongside The Terrorists

While this truth-teller strongly believes the Libertarian who served as a Republican Representative in the House Ron Paul is very wrong on many issues, there is one area in which he believes the elder Paul has it right. What follows is Mr. Paul speaking about our so-called "war on terror"...

Ron Paul: 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he said "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones". (Excerpt from a 9/11/2013 HuffPo article by Nick Wing).

In regards to to Ron Paul on "blowback", the blogger Willis Hart (who calls himself a fiscally Conservative "small L Libertarian") wrote a commentary in which he expressed his disagreement with former Rep. Paul on this matter...

Willis Hart: For Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation. (3/9/2014 AT 12:44pm).

This view of Mr. Hart is, of course, complete bullplop. Although he does not go as far in insulting Mr. Paul as the delusional idiot Dennis Marks, who replies with the following...

Dennis Marks: I'm sure those like WD, with a "hate Americans first" attitude and who speaks with one voice alongside the terrorists on this will disagree. Strongly. Remember, he wanted Bin Laden to be turned over to a kangaroo court of fellow terrorists so he could get something between a slap on the wrist or a pat in the back... but not justice at all. (3/11/2014 AT 12:44pm).

Yeah, his intention is to insult me with this vile lie, but if what Dennis says applies to me, then it assuredly applies to Mr. Paul as well. And, Marks is also fiscally Conservative in his thinking, same as Mr. Hart. But both of these morons have allowed their Islamophobia and thirst for vengeance to blind them to the anger our killing of Muslim innocents has seeded.

Illegal invasions and drone attacks have caused Muslims worldwide who wouldn't have joined up due to a desire for "jihad" and to convert infidels or kill them - joining up for REVENGE. That's blowback. People cautioning against it are NOT "speaking with one voice alongside the terrorists". Willis Hart is the naive one here. And Dennis Marks is an extremely sick lying sack of shit.

Dennis so depraved in his desire to KILL KILL KILL "the terrorists" that he eagerly slanders people concerned about the cycle of violence (and not at all on the side of the terrorists) with sick vile lies. And with no shame at all. Willis Hart should be embarrassed that his commentary elicited such vile filth. But it appears these two half-wits think - if not exactly - then very much alike.

TADM #21. See also OST #2 and SWTD #239.

Half-Baked BS From Dennis Has Him Hating Quote While Giving Murderer A Pass

Another Dennis Marks comment to file under "pure delusion"...

Dennis Marks: [WD made an] endorsement of a deplorable quote by the worst mass murderer in human history (and his half-baked later attempt to distance himself a little from Stalin... while still embracing the deplorable quote). (3/4/2014 at 3:43pm)

So, it's only the QUOTE that is "deplorable"? Must be, because he says it TWICE, and not even once does he attach the adjective to Joseph Stalin. Figures Dennis would be more offended by the quote then by Stalin himself, as the quote points out an uncomfortable truth for those who worship wealth like Dennis...

Joe Stalin: Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts.

Joe Stalin DOES identify a fundamental fact, one that Dennis is completely abstracted from. Also, Dennis will fight to his dying breath for the plutocrats' "right" to exploit workers, although Dennis calls this exploitation "fair pay". No wonder the dude goes after the QUOTE instead of the deplorable Stalin himself.

The "distancing" Dennis refers to is my acknowledgement of the accuracy of the quote while condemning Stalin. I condemn him because he lied - he identified a problem but then did nothing to fix it. All Stalin did was transfer the property to himself and a ruling elite. The antagonism and exploiting between rich and poor continued, now with Stalin and his ruling elites taking on the roles of the rich exploiters.

Also, it should be noted that Stalin made things much worse with the murdering, which Dennis uses the adjective "worst" to describe. So, looks like Dennis is against murdering, but not against exploitation and concentration of wealth.

Probably because he sees how successful tricking people into accepting a wealthy elite has been here in the US. The gullible citizenry believes that maybe one day they too will be wealthy. Therefore taxes on the rich shouldn't be too high, as the fools who vote Republican think that maybe, just maybe, they might have to pay that tax rate one day.

These are the kind of fools like Dennis who vote against their own interests. And worship wealth. Although Dennis lies and tries to distance himself from that reality - but laughably suggesting that our elected representatives are the "rulers" who steal from us (by way of taxes).

Frankly, I find both deplorable. Those who take advantage by promising equality but not delivering it (as well as murdering), like Stalin. And those who promise YOU TOO can be rich. All you have to do is work hard... and get taken advantage of by the wealthy elites who will underpay you for your labor in order to further enrich THEMSELVES.

Those who worship wealth like Mr. Marks are deplorable as well, in my book. Deplorable too that Dennis continues to lie about how I feel about Joe Stalin. File that in the "vile lie" category.

TADM #17

Dennis Lies Concerning "Heroes" That Are Not Heroes

"Political Quotes To Ponder" was the title of a 1/19/2014 on the "Rational Nation" blog. Proprietor of said blog, Mr. Nation, posted a bunch of political quotes, all of them critical of government... which is fine. Constructive criticism is a necessary thing to improve an institution that has such a huge impact on our lives. Except that isn't the motivation with Libertarian Objectivist Rand devotees like Nation and (most of) his hardcore band of loyal commenters.

Their only desire is to tear down the institution that represents "we the people" and replace government with the "free market", as if capitalism was a form of governance. As far as representing goes, unfettered capitalism (or capitalism under a weak government) would greatly empower the plutocrats.

One commenter saw the multitude of quotes concerning "private property" posted by Dennis Marks, and he decided to submit a few contrary quotes of his own. Among these quotes, the blogger in question slipped in a quote by Stalin that read "mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division; and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts".

The provider of the quote added no commentary in addition to the quote. Just the quote, along with a couple others, was submitted (and published by the blog proprietor). The quote, while true, was made by a monstrous tyrant responsible for (according to Wikipedia) "2.9 million officially recorded victims". Quoting Stalin was not intended as any kind of endorsement or defense of the man, yet the lying Dennis Marks jumps on the posting of the quote with the following comment...

Dennis Marks: For the most part, socialism is by far the most effective method for concentrating increasing wealth disparity (as I mentioned in the comment about Mr. Sander's hero Stalin over at "Rational Nation"). (2/23/2014 AT 9:01am).

To Dennis' comment about socialism I would add a correction... which is that lying about bringing socialism to a nation but then establishing a ruling class with yourself as the head tyrant is an effective method for concentrating wealth. The reason is that people yearn for a economic system that is fair, one in which the fruits of their labors isn't stolen by the plutocrats.

So they listen to liars who promise socialism... but history has shown that these rulers always fail to deliver. Instead they take advantage and exploit their positions to satisfy their own greedy desires for wealth and power. Such is human nature, I suppose. This is why I favor Democratic Socialism and condemn murderous tyrants and liars like Stalin. He most certainly is not a "hero" of mine, Dennis, you lying sack of shit.

Willis Hart (another lying sack of shit) gets in on the bashing with his own bullplop comment.

Willis Hart: ...yeah, that Stalin quote was yet another low point for a fellow whose entire life has been one giant limbo contest. (2/23/2014 AT 3:24pm).

So how does this a$shole know what I've been doing my "entire life"... which includes many things done outside of blogging on the internet? Answer: he doesn't. He is simply pulling lies out of his ass, as is par for the course with this jagoff.

Image Description: Stalin, NOT a hero of the Left, despite lies from scumbags on the Right like Dennis Marks and Willis Hart.

Supporting Document
Stalin Worship, DSD #5.

TADM #5.

On Dennis Marks & Frances Boyle

Francis Boyle, or "Frances" Boyle, as Dennis likes to call him, is a Jewish man who accurately called the ex-preznit bush's invasion of Iraq illegal and a war crime. Aside from that, Boyle has controversial views regarding Israel that I disagree with.

Although I do NOT believe these views make the Jewish Boyle an anti-Semite as Dennis does. Boyle, is clearly an anti-Zionist, however. But being an anti-Zionist does not automatically mean the person holding these views is anti-Semitic. I mean, the dude is Jewish himself! But Dennis has a history of referring to Jewish people who hold opinions he disagrees with anti-Semites... which could be, IMO, a kind of anti-Semitism itself.

Especially considering that Boyle's anti-Zionism is the ONLY stance of Boyle that Dennis uses to reach his conclusion that the Jewish Boyle is a self-hating anti-Semite. I've never seen any proof that Boyle is self-hating.

Although it does seem that Boyle being against the Iraq war and deeming bush's invasion (among other things) to be a war crime(s) is another factoid that Dennis used to determine that Boyle is an anti-Semite. Not that the two things have anything to do with one another (believing that bush might be a war criminal and anti-Semitism, that is). But the delusional Dennis seems to think that they are related.

In any case, I do believe these Boyles' anti-Zionism views invalidate his correct conclusions regarding the legality of bush's invasion of Iraq, which is that it wasn't. And, as far as Boyle's anti-Zionism views go - I disagree with them... not that that stops the lying Dennis from saying I do, which the confabulator has done on a number of occasions.

Video Description: Bush, Blair wanted for war crimes - an interview with Francis Boyle. (25:56; interview begins at 1:29)

TADM #4