Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination for requiring a Photo ID to vote --- if Eric Holder wins, SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/4/2012 4:15 PM, Fair Play wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:34:37 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>> news:d6jo1814p7sab3ib1...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:28:03 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>> news:hnfo185lttddk0kqk...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:35:06 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:gt5o18t61a559fjq1...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:07:23 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:fajl18tsliog7jr8p...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:34:08 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/2/2012 1:08 PM, Fair Play wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:27:26 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you talking about our Constitution? The organic law for
>>>>>>>>>>>> our entire country? Do you feel it should not apply anymore?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a question of feeling. It obviously doesn't act as
>>>>>>>>>>> the "organic law for our entire country", no matter how
>>>>>>>>>>> strongly libertarians think it should.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 9-11 and the Patriot act and it's subsequent extensions
>>>>>>>>>>> changed
>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps what you and others are trying to explain is that our
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution is a very brief, minimal and incomplete framework
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> governance of our country, not the complete and final blueprint
>>>>>>>>>> for all governmental operations, the beginning and the end, the
>>>>>>>>>> alpha
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> the omega, all that is necessary for governance. Nor is it
>>>> perfect,
>>>>>>>>>> or a suitable icon for mindless idolatry. After all, we've
>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> necessary to amend the document numerous times already, and
>>>>>>>>>> there never seems to be anything close to universal agreement
>>>>>>>>>> about what
>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> means, what it requires, what it prohibits, or how to best
>>>> effectuate
>>>>>>>>>> those requirements. Moreover, our understanding of what those
>>>>>>>>>> requirements actually are, typically but not always expressed
>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>> the Supreme Court, keeps changing and evolving over time,
>>>>>>>>>> sometimes quite drastically. In summary, very few questions can
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>> decisively
>>>>>>>>>> or permanently answered merely by reference to the bare text
>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The mocking was in reference to the mindless idolatry you
>>>>>>>>> mention..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Elderly zealots with a copy of the constitution in one hand and
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>> gun
>>>>>>>>> in the other, with tea bags hanging from their hats do not trump
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> Supreme Court no matter how loud they shout.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What are they doing that, in your opinion, is unconstitutional?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What?
>>>>>>> Where does that come from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I fully support their right to congregate and express their views.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true.....and I have the right to ask them where those views
>>>>>> come from. That doesn't mean that I will get an answer. Most
>>>>>> likely I
>>>> won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the question.
>>>>
>>>> This comment below is what I was responding to:
>>>>
>>>> "The mocking was in reference to the mindless idolatry you mention..
>>>>
>>>> Elderly zealots with a copy of the constitution in one hand and a gun
>>>> in the other, with tea bags hanging from their hats do not trump the
>>>> Supreme Court no matter how loud they shout."
>>>>
>>>> 1) I don't know what mindless idolatry you were referring to...
>>>> probably my error.
>>>
>>> It was a very apt phrase Jeff M used to describe certain eccentric
>>> individuals who seem to use the constitution as a Bible or Koran
>>> to be interpreted as a supreme authority and guide on every area of
>>> life.
>>>
>>> Maybe you have to meet them to understand.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2) It seemed to be a disparagement of those who believe in the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean what the rank and file members are doing in their
>>>>> demonstrations and rallies or what their billionaire leaders are up
>>>>> to?
>>>>
>>>> Seems I detect a bit of bias there......is that true? ;)
>>>
>>> lol
>>>
>>> Never, what on earth gave you that idea?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the former then I don't think they are doing anything
>>>>> unconstitutional AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>>> trying to stop folk from voting is a different story though.
>>>>
>>>> Who is trying to stop folks from voting? How are they doing it?
>>>
>>> Here's the most recent trick being attempted
>>>
>>> ""Without early voting in these last three days before Election Day,
>>> tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their
>>> right to vote during this time period, including the plaintiffs'
>>> members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future
>>> elections at all"
>>>
>>>
>>> Obama Campaign Issues First Election Law Challenge, Suing Ohio Over
>>> Early Voting
>>>
>>> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/364432/20120718/ohio-voting-registratio
>>> n-early-obama-campaign-laws.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> President Barack Obama's reelection campaign has sued Ohio over a law
>>> restricting early voting, arguing that the law discourages some
>>> Ohioans from being able to cast ballots.
>>>
>>> Democrats have been warning for months that a spate of new voting laws
>>> imposing new identification requirements, tightening registration
>>> rules and curtailing early voting -- nearly all of them passed by
>>> Republican legislatures and signed by Republican governors -- could
>>> skew the election.
>>>
>>> The Democratic National Committee vowed to counteract what its chair
>>> called an "assault on voting rights," and Attorney General Eric Holder
>>> has emerged as an outspoken critic of the new laws, recently likening
>>> a Texas voter ID law to a poll tax.
>>>
>>> Holder's Justice Department has sued to block implementation of
>>> several of those laws, but the Ohio lawsuit marks the first time
>>> president's reelection campaign has joined the fray. Under the Ohio
>>> law, military personnel and overseas voters are allowed to vote
>>> through the Monday preceding the election, which falls on a Tuesday,
>>> while others are prohibited from early in-person voting after the
>>> Friday before the election.
>>>
>>> The Obama campaign argued that the new law violates the Constitution's
>>> equal protection clause by extending early voting rights to only some
>>> voters.
>>>
>>> "This lawsuit seeks to treat all Ohio citizens equally under the law,"
>>> Bob Bauer, the attorney for Obama for America, the president's
>>> campaign committee, said in a conference call with reporters. "We want
>>> to restore the right of all to vote before Election Day."
>>>
>>> Driving the dispute is Ohio's role as a crucial swing state. Nearly a
>>> third of Ohioans voted before election day in 2008, when Obama won the
>>> perennial battleground en route to the presidency. The implications of
>>> a law restricting early voting in 2012 are not lost on the Obama
>>> campaign.
>>>
>>> "Without early voting in these last three days before Election Day,
>>> tens of thousands of citizens who would have otherwise exercised their
>>> right to vote during this time period, including the plaintiffs'
>>> members and supporters, may not be able to participate in future
>>> elections at all,"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They argue the same crap over photo ID. I want to know who is voting in
>> our elections and that they are legally eligible to vote. To do any
>> different is to nullify my right to vote.
>
> You want to disenfranchise voters who don't have photo ID.
>
> Old folk who have voted for decades, finding themselves turned away
> at polling stations after waiting hours to try to vote?
>
> America already has one of the lowest participation rates in elections
> and you want to reduce the participation even further?
>
> The goal isn't to reduce non existent voter fraud but to prevent folk
> voting.
>
That would be why you need a PHOTO ID to buy a gun....


To get rid of the elderly buyers and lower 2nd amendment participation
and to prevent folks from owning and using their firearms.


But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination
for requiring a Photo ID to vote. And doesn't that mean that if Eric
Holder wins that SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID
for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?


*Rumination*

#40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

and to prevent folks from owning and using their firearms. You
described it well.

But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the grounds that it's

discrimination for requiring a Photo ID to vote. And doesn't that mean

that if Eric Holder wins, that SCOTUS will also be saying with that
ruling banning the States from requiring a photo ID being
unconstitutional. Then requiring a photo ID to exercise your gun rights
is also discrimination?


A right is a right.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/10/2012 1:21 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 9, 3:03 am, Gary Forbis <forbisga...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 4:11:21 PM UTC-7, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> IOW, you haven't a clue what a 4473 is and what the joke was.
>>
>> I didn't but it was easy to look up. I was downloading a copy
>> of it but it stalled at 67%. It requires a government issued
>> ID. I'm not sure which are allowed, that's why I was loading
>> the form. Maybe it will be loaded by morning.
>>
>> The issue still stands. Getting a government issued photo id
>> can be quite expensive depending upon the details.
>
> its a back door poll tax.
>
You mean the same as "Affordable housing" was a back door Democrat
welfare program?

Like ObamaCare is back door slavery, we call it a tax but....
--

*Rumination*

#46 - Welcome to Socialism, where mediocrity is the highest achievement
possible.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/11/2012 2:36 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> news:501D8C2F...@blackhole.nebulax.com:
>
>>
>>
>
> Eric Holder is suing Texas because he can't find Mitt Romney to arrest him
> for those alleged felonies and he's kinda embarassed.


Eric Holder is too busy selling guns to Mexican DRUG LORDS to do much
more than sue TEXAS for discrimination.... but he's suing for the
wrong discrimination, ERIC HOLDER should be suing to stop gun rights
discrimination against the Mexican DRUG LORDS and poor people who don't
have a PHOTO ID.


Eric Holder could sort of kill two jailbirds with one stone.....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

>>>> the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
>>>> preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote
>>>> the general Welfare:The document also granted the federal
>>>> government broad ?domestic powers including authority to regulate
>>>> interstate commerce, ?the so-called Commerce Clause


No wonder you're so confused, you don't have any reading comprehension
skills...


The Preamble is what you would regard as a MISSION STATEMENT in today's
terminology. The Preamble explains what the constitution
*in its entirety* is ideally going to accomplish. Not that there is a
"POWER" in the constitution to "Promote General Welfare" (because there
isn't) but that the document when looked at as a whole and if
constructed correctly and as intended will promote the general welfare
of We The People.


Now promoting the general Welfare likely would of included limiting
Government since the people writing this were escaping the tyranny of
King George..... So promoting our general welfare was done by making
sure that the "Federal" government didn't become all powerful.



The Preamble tells you what the end result of their document will be,
NOT what powers are going to be directly inserted as if the preamble
were an index of the powers delegated.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/13/2012 12:28 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:

> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:24:45 AM UTC-7, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 8/11/2012 2:36 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Eric Holder is too busy selling guns to Mexican DRUG LORDS
>

> You should at least get it right.
>
> Eric Holder is too busy trying to convince local prosecutors
> kids don't spend $500k on weapons for their own use then
> just happen to change their minds the moment they leave the
> store so resell them as private individuals to others in
> the parking lot.
>
> The logic that applies to adults buying beer the giving it
> to minors in the parking lots



Yet the ATF and Eric Holder don't ignore the law and let the minors
drink the beer and then drive away.



Because... because it would be *illegal* ?




--

*Rumination*

#3 - Liberals live in fear of anyone that promotes the notion of
self-sufficiency and responsible behavior.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

["According to the Liberals own interpretation of the constitution, they
can never declare any law or power constitutional, as the interpretation
will change...... Liberals live in a world of circular logic and none so
poignant as this one. It is truly *Poetic Justice*"]


On 8/13/2012 2:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
> news:cca1cd9e-4dc7-4777...@a1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Aug 10, 10:26 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>> Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
>>> innews:k03tad$6km
>> $1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:TvCdnYBUAuiDhbjN...@posted.localnet...
>>>>> Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:k02bl4$62u$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>> Heck, for that matter where does the Constitution state they can
>>>>>> regu
>> late
>>>>>> things that aren't even in commerce....interstate or intrastate?
>>>>>> Specifically, a farmer growing grain for his own personal use.
>>>>> That HAS to rank as one of the worst decisions ever.
>>>> Particularly when you consider it has YET to be overturned and is
>>>> the b
>> asis
>>>> of so many violations of the Constitution....
>>>
>>> Including ObamaCare.
>>
>> its constitutional, get over it.
>>
>
> It was declared so, yes.




NO it was declared a tax, that doesn't mean that some other challenge
would not prove Obamacare to be unconstitutional as did the commerce
argument, they didn't evaluate it on all the constitutional tests only
on what was discussed before the court. They "looked" for ways to make
it constitutional according to Justice Roberts but they didn't look for
ALL the places that it might violate the constitution and I have picked
out around a half dozen reasons it is Unconstitutional. A law is never
"constitutional" it is just NOT unconstitutional according to the
arguments provided thus far. According to the Liberals own
interpretation of the constitution, they can never declare any law or
power constitutional, as the interpretation will change and or *ALL*
other arguments were NOT considered. Liberals live in a world of
circular logic and none so poignant as this one.

It is truly *Poetic Justice*


In the Liberal MATRIX... A law is Never beyond challenge, especially
since the interpretation of the constitution is changing on a daily
basis, what was constitutional yesterday is not necessarily so today and
a law may need to be challenged on a daily basis.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/14/2012 3:36 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:

> On Monday, August 13, 2012 11:09:56 AM UTC-7, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 8/13/2012 12:28 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:24:45 AM UTC-7, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>

>>>> On 8/11/2012 2:36 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>
>>>> Eric Holder is too busy selling guns to Mexican DRUG LORDS
>>>

>>> You should at least get it right.
>>>
>>> Eric Holder is too busy trying to convince local prosecutors
>>> kids don't spend $500k on weapons for their own use then
>>> just happen to change their minds the moment they leave the
>>> store so resell them as private individuals to others in
>>> the parking lot.
>>>
>>> The logic that applies to adults buying beer the giving it

>>> to minors in the parking lots also applies to guns.
>>>
>> The problem was Eric Holder allowed the guns sold when the gun dealers
>> were telling him and the ATF that these people were lying on the forms
>> they filled out and that the guns were going to be resold to Mexican
>> DRUG LORDS....
>
> The problem with your story is:
> 1. Eric Holder wasn't personally.

You know this because you have the names of the people that uathorized
this Fast and Furious program.... do people in government start their
own programs? Government can just violate Federal laws....?

> 2. The local prosicutors wouldn't provide the warrents, without
> which no arrests could be made. It doesn't matter what the gun
> dealers say if the prosecutors won't act upon it.


Exactly, the law enforcement was allowing the guns to be purchased by
people filling out the forms and lying on a Federal form.... that is
illegal as I recall.

As if the ATF and Eric Holder couldn't catch a gun violation....?

If that's the case then cut their budgets and save the money for gun
sales enforcement. It is a useless waste of our tax money.


--

*Rumination*

#38 - Using the LAW to steal is the ultimate crime.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

--

*Rumination*

#62 - Democrats have created a Matrix to convince you life is good....
you might call it the Liberal-Socialist "MACHINE" that has created your
matrix.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/14/2012 11:13 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in

> message
> news:1a7277d0-3158-4973...@p5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 13, 9:16 pm, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>> news:bf1564cd-a710-4969...@j11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Aug 10, 4:43 pm, "Scout"
>>> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>> >> message
>>>
>>> >>news:3647a29e-0e1c-42bf...@e5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> >> > On Aug 10, 2:01 am, "Scout"

>>> >> > <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>> >> >> "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>>>

>>> >> >>news:tuKdndhrEqvVLLnN...@posted.localnet...
>>>
>>> >> >> > Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>> >> >>
>>> >news:bed9515b-945a-4a10...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> >> >> >> On Aug 8, 12:22 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com>
>>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> innews:d2fb6c13-e061-402d...@o7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> On Aug 8, 1:25 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com>
>>> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>>> >> >> >>>>>
>>> innews:b27a47d1-f21a-4f5c...@k21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Aug 7, 8:19 pm, "max headroom"
>>> <maxheadr...@localnet.com>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com>
>>> wrote
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>>> innews:ff0be7e0-7446-4732...@m13g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 7, 3:32 pm, "Scout"
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Do you think just anyone should be able to walk up,
>>> claim >> >> >>>>>>>>> to
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> be
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Mr
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> X, and
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> get to vote?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> can you supply me with empirical credible verifiable
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> evidence
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> of
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> mass
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> voter fraud in america?...
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> where is the empirical evidence?
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> Right there, above my comment. Scout asked you a question
>>> and
>>> >> >> >>>>> you
>>> >> >> >>>>> evaded it.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> you said i evaded the question, i did not. that is not >>
>>> >> >>>> empirical
>>> >> >> >>>> evidence of wise spread voter fraud. clearly this is over
>>> your
>>> >> >> >>>> head.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Apparently the English language is over yours.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Scout asked you, "Do you think just anyone should be able
>>> to >> >> >>> walk
>>> >> >> >>> up,
>>> >> >> >>> claim to be Mr X, and get
>>> >> >> >>> to vote?"
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> You evaded his question by redirection.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> yet, it has not led to widespread voter fraud. i asked
>>> where is
>>> >> >> >> the
>>> >> >> >> beef?...
>>>
>>> >> >> > You continue to evade Scout's question.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> ... your type simply cannot supply it....
>>>
>>> >> >> > You lie. He did.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> ... its a right for americans to vote without poll taxes, >>
>>> >> >> period.
>>>
>>> >> >> > No one here is proposing poll taxes.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> ... because bush could not. now be careful, i am
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> very good at spotting conservative fraud.
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> otherwise, you are just another conservative who hates
>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> democracy.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>>> So did our founding fathers.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>>> poll taxes are unconstitutional. OBTW, the founders
>>> crafted >> >> >>>>>> the
>>> >> >> >>>>>> constitution, just in case you want to know the founders
>>> >> >> >>>>>> original
>>> >> >> >>>>>> intent.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>>> Very good, Grasshopper. The Federalist Papers also
>>> explain >> >> >>>>> their
>>> >> >> >>>>> intent.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> the federalist papers were a blueprint for a strong >> >>
>>> >>>> centralized
>>> >> >> >>>> government.
>>>
>>> >> >> >>> Hardly.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> yes they were, and its a historical fact. otherwise the
>>> >> >> >> constitution
>>> >> >> >> would not have included the broad powers to tax, negate
>>> state >> >> >> law,
>>> >> >> >> regulate, tax. legislate, mandate and to promote and provide
>>> for
>>> >> >> >> the
>>> >> >> >> general welfare. you simply cannot refute it:)))))
>>>
>>> >> >> > Sure I can. You're full of pelosi.
>>>
>>> >> >> > The Federalist Papers were written after the Constitution was
>>> >> >> > drafted.
>>> >> >> > They had no effect on the
>>> >> >> > contents of the Constitution.

>>>
>>> >> >> >>>> the Constitution created a robust central
>>> authority:stating in
>>> >> >> >>>> the
>>> >> >> >>>> preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to
>>> >> >> >>>> promote
>>> >> >> >>>> the
>>> >> >> >>>> general Welfare:The document also granted the federal >>
>>> >> >>>> government
>>> >> >> >>>> broad ?domestic powers including authority to regulate >>
>>> >> >>>> interstate
>>> >> >> >>>> commerce, ?the so-called Commerce Clause
>>>

>>> >> >> >>> Yet the feds now claim the authority to regulate intrastate
>>> >> >> >>> commerce.
>>>
>>> >> >> >> its constitutional.
>>>
>>> >> >> > Where, specifically, does the Constitution state the federal
>>> >> >> > government
>>> >> >> > can regulate intrastate
>>> >> >> > commerce?

>>>
>>> >> >> Heck, for that matter where does the Constitution state they can
>>> >> >> regulate
>>> >> >> things that aren't even in commerce....interstate or intrastate?
>>>
>>> >> >> Specifically, a farmer growing grain for his own personal use.
>>>

>>> >> > the constitution does not specify every case. because the
>>> majority >> > of
>>> >> > the founders were liberals, and gave the constitution broad powers.
>>>
>>> >> > Section 8 - Powers of Congress
>>>
>>> >> > To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
>>> carrying >> > into
>>> >> > Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
>>> >> > Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>>> >> > Department or Officer thereof.
>>>
>>> >> Yep, and refers ONLY to those powers specifically given and >>
>>> enumerated.
>>>
>>> > nope,
>>>
>>> > To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
>>> > Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
>>> > Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
>>> > Department or Officer thereof.
>>>
>>> Key phrases: "foregoing Powers", "all other powers vested by this
>>> Constitution"
>>>
>>> IOW, those powers enumerated in that Section of the Constitution, or any
>>> other Section or Amendment to the Constitution.
>>>
>>> Like I said, it refers only to those powers specifically given and
>>> enumerated.
>>>
>>> > THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
>>> > Article. VI.
>>> > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
>>> > made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
>>> > made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
>>> > Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
>>> > any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
>>> > notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> Key Phrases" "Pursuance" (ie carrying out the powers) "thereof"
>>> (reference
>>> to the Constitution)
>>>
>>> To put that into less technical language:
>>>
>>> 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
>>> made in
>>> [carrying out the powers granted] [within this Constitution]; and all
>>> Treaties.....'
>>>
>>> Really, you should attempt to read for comprehension. It might make
>>> you look
>>> like less of an idiot.
>>
>> unless of course you left parts out like this,
>>
>> THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
>> Article. VI.
>> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
>> made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
>> made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
>> Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
>> any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
>> notwithstanding.
>
> Which does not alter that the point made that the Supremacy Clause does
> not authorized unlimited, unchecked, and endless powers for the US
> government, but rather applies only to those specific powers set forth
> in the Constitution.
>
>
Why write a constitution with limits if you then write a clause that
makes the rest of the document superfluous by giving supreme and total
power to the federal government....?

The Supremacy clause is NOT meant to create an "all" powerful
government, just to re-enforce jurisdiction of power when and if they
are redundant and both States and the Federal Government have the same
power.

An example is a Bank Robbery, why do police and the FBI respond to a
bank robbery? theft is a local/State issue, but the bank is FDIC and
Federally chartered... what if the local police stop enforcement of
bank robberies and only the FBI is looking for the Bank robbers. NO
police with an "all points bulletin" and NO local small town FBI so they
have to bring in all their own Federal employees to look for the Bank
robbers.


Being "supreme" is meaningless when they can't get the JOB done, because
they can't stay and look for six months and no one else cares or is looking.


the State of AZ should stop all activity with Federal Bank robberies,
just quit responding.... it's Federal Jurisdiction.


They should also apply for the Federal money Obama is offering to build
high speed trains and build it in the desert from the Mexican border to
their Northern Arizona border, allow anyone to ride that agrees to NOT
remain in AZ and if caught in AZ they will go to AZ Jail, no search and
NO ticket fees. Imagine all the illegals and drug dealers that will
take that train. That would cut the Arizona law enforcement cost.

Supremacy may just NOT be all it's cracked up to be.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/15/2012 12:38 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 14, 4:08 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
>
> you can blame the state of texas for any education shortfalls. but in
> your world, the corporate school system is a more desired system.
>
Since the Government schools are a failure, there is no need to continue
to waste money on a system that succeeds only 50% of the time, we could
flip a coin and get that kind of number.


What's more likely is that these Government schools are driving smart
kids to failure. Government schools teach kids to be stupid and sponge
off the government.


--

*Rumination*


*HOW TO ALLOW AMERICA TO SURVIVE*
And give America back to Americans

Reducing regulations is primary since regulation is what stifles
commerce, the more regulations, the more it costs our economy. Most
regulations are used by existing businesses to reduce competition, and
competition would help us get out of this depression.

End the "war on drugs" make them legal (increase competition) and sold
at any drug store and push for prostitution to be legal too, that will
take the BIG money out of trafficking in drugs, and that will reduce the
gangs/dealers income and that should reduce the value of sex slaves and
hurt the human trafficking business income also. Why have illegal
prostitutes when there are so many legal tax paying prostitutes out there?


Create Bi-color money, Red money for inside the USA and Original Green
money outside the USA..... NOTHING BUT A COLOR/INK difference, and
suddenly sending red money home to Mexico would be useless as the RED
money would be useless in Mexico since the Banks and etc wouldn't accept
it abroad. All electronic money leaving the USA would be debited the
Sales tax when the money is sent/spent.

The Drug dealers would have Red money that they need to exchange for
green money, makes it hard to do in large amounts and hard to spend and
more expensive to deal with….. that *makes Drug smuggling less*
*profitable* as would dropping the income tax and installing a
NATIONAL “NEW ITEM” SALES TAX *NOT* IMPLEMENTING A VAT TAX WHICH WILL
HELP THE DRUG DEALERS and illegals by making their tax free money
leaving the country even more valuable. If they had to buy/exchange the
RED money for GREEN money then you would charge the sales tax at that
point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7FshBjkS6U&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogpile.com%2Finfo.dogpl.prefer%2Fsearch%2Fweb%3Fq%3Dportugal-legalizes-drugs--crime-usage-falls

Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment...
Maybe enact something similar to the http://fairtax.org (Federal sales
tax) *BUT NOT A VAT or VALUE ADDED TAX* with the same mendment that
removes income tax and the IRS, preferably a Federal *NEW ITEM* sales tax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7AgwtSzxt8

This will reduce the number of tax crimes that people are in jails for
and it will give the people back their privacy. It will also promote
*GREEN* living where people will save more and waste less and buy second
hand and wear things out rather than discard and buy new. Then add to
the amendment that *if congress raises any tax by* 1% *they are forced*
*to cut* every single expenditure of the *government by* 3%.

Begin to draw down troops as needed from around the world. Put half of
our military bases along the southern Border to minimize the amount of
border that the Border patrol needs to watch, the military and Federal
trespassing laws will push the illegals to spaces between the military
bases.

This tax/border policy will financially assault the drug dealers and
hookers and other underground economy's by forcing them to have to pay
tax when they *spend their money* , which will further reduce the
benefit of dealing in other illegal stuff. There needs to be one type
of dollar for use inside America and one type(color) of dollars for use
outside the USA. That will make it harder for smugglers to get money out
of the country and if they do spend it here then they will pay the sales
tax and that money is used to enforce the laws to catch smugglers and
terrorists. We are "right now" taking money from peoples pay checks
before they get them and at the same time we don't tax drug dealers
terrorists or hookers or illegals or others at all, we are penalizing
the working Americans and giving a TAX loop hole bonus to illegal
activity. Sales tax will also encourage saving money rather than
encouraging the leveraging of every dime you can borrow like income tax
does.

This will drive people in the underground economy to become part of the
real economy. It will stop most of the turf killings and end our
immigration problems with illegals stealing identities since they will
be paying tax(as sales tax). Offer illegals less welfare and charge them
tax and they won't be so eager to come here and we won't need to chase
them......

End Social Security/Medicare, grandfather it out of existence.

Pass an amendment to the constitution that makes all
*laws_and_treaties* have a seven year sunset clause, and it requires
that each law/treaty be voted by a separate roll call vote every seven
years to continue to be maintained in our laws.

There should also be some constitutional amendments to stifle congress'
borrowing and spending making it more difficult for that process. And a
constitutional amendment to limit the Interstate Commerce Clause. The
politicians use that clause to justify all sorts of socialist crap. The
founding fathers never meant for it to be so broadly applied. Limit it
with an amendment, so government can't justify every crazy idea by
saying its legal under the interstate commerce clause.

Pass another amendment creating term limits on congress so the House
has 6 terms and the Senate has 2 terms, for a total of 12 years in
either side of congress. WE NEED TO STOP CONGRESS FROM PASSING FRIVOLOUS
LAWS TAXES AND BORROWING AND ENDLESSLY PRINTING MONEY.

To quit filling the jails with people over *social taboos* , we need to
take away congress' ability to "social engineer" businesses or private
people by removing the governments use of tax code to manipulate people.

Government needs to spend 10% less every year until they meet the
income of the government. The best way, is to
*use_both_cutting_and_taxing* , the Congress should implement a rule to
force an across the board spending freeze/cap (That only allows cutting
spending) and then across the board cuts on the government spending, to
do that we have to include a law in our TAX amendment to the
constitution that can't be easily circumvented, to force them to cut
spending 3% for every 1% Congress raise taxes. So any federal sales tax
increase would result in automatic spending cuts using a baseline of 10%
taxes.

And we need to give up our roll as the police man of the world, let
them fight their own fights. We also need fewer crimes for people to be
committing, we need fewer police and prisons to support.... the above
drug and tax plan, will reduce police and prison needs by at least that
10% that this plan suggested cutting each year.

NO welfare to corporations, and cut welfare to private people by 10%
each year until it is 10% of today's cost. Any way you look at it, we're
in DEEP for a long time.

[Eddie Haskell]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:gGQWr.218204$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 8/15/2012 12:38 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 4:08 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>>
>>
>> you can blame the state of texas for any education shortfalls. but in
>> your world, the corporate school system is a more desired system.
>>
> Since the Government schools are a failure, there is no need to continue
> to waste money on a system that succeeds only 50% of the time, we could
> flip a coin and get that kind of number.
>
>
> What's more likely is that these Government schools are driving smart
> kids to failure. Government schools teach kids to be stupid and sponge
> off the government.

Yeah but BRAACK more money for education. BRAACK!

-Eddie Haskell

[Tecknomage]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:46:52 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> Why write a constitution with limits if you then write a clause that
> makes the rest of the document superfluous by giving supreme and total
> power to the federal government....?
>
> The Supremacy clause is NOT meant to create an "all" powerful
> government, just to re-enforce jurisdiction of power when and if they
> are redundant and both States and the Federal Government have the same
> power.

Your interpretation of the previous poster's comments is wrong.

The U.S. Constitution overrides ANY state (or local) law that violates
it. Without that you, or any citizen, would have no Constitutionally
protected rights. The states could do anything to you it wanted.

The U.S. Constitution also grants *specific powers* to our federal
government AND has limits to federal power.

To have a national government that protects the ALL the people, you
have to have limits to what anyone can do. You give up the right to
do ANYTHING you (individual) want, which applies to local and state
governments.

Our U.S. Constitution also provides a way to change things you do not
like by Constructional Amendment. We also have the power to Impeach.
"The people" can change things, which gives us the final say, we just
have to convince the Senate and enough stats to pass an Amendment.

>
> An example is a Bank Robbery, why do police and the FBI respond to a
> bank robbery? theft is a local/State issue, but the bank is FDIC and
> Federally chartered... what if the local police stop enforcement of
> bank robberies and only the FBI is looking for the Bank robbers. NO
> police with an "all points bulletin" and NO local small town FBI so they
> have to bring in all their own Federal employees to look for the Bank
> robbers.
>
>

The FBI gets into bank robberies because the states do not print the
money, our federal government does, making it a FBI issue. It is also
why the Secret Service handles money counterfeiting issues, again a
federal issue.

Both federal agencies always corporate with local LEOs, they do not
have the manpower to do a full, long term, investigation, but they do
have the expertise they provide.

> Being "supreme" is meaningless when they can't get the JOB done, because
> they can't stay and look for six months and no one else cares or is looking.
>
>
> the State of AZ should stop all activity with Federal Bank robberies,
> just quit responding.... it's Federal Jurisdiction.
>

Which WOULD violate laws passed by Congress.

>
> They should also apply for the Federal money Obama is offering to build
> high speed trains and build it in the desert from the Mexican border to
> their Northern Arizona border, allow anyone to ride that agrees to NOT
> remain in AZ and if caught in AZ they will go to AZ Jail, no search and
> NO ticket fees. Imagine all the illegals and drug dealers that will
> take that train. That would cut the Arizona law enforcement cost.
>
> Supremacy may just NOT be all it's cracked up to be.
>

Again, the "illegals" boogeyman rant, 'they take jobs from Americans.'
BS, they take the jobs Americans will not take (or stay with) for the
pay. UNLESS Americans want to pay more for all the goods and services
they provide.


As to the drug issue, that has nothing to do with illegal immigration.
It has to do with the *demand on our side of the border*. As long as
there is such a high demand for illegal drugs in the U.S. there will
be a traffic of drugs into our nation by any means.



--
==== Tecknomage ====
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,
it is the illusion of knowledge."
-- Stephen Hawking

And Republican morons.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/15/2012 11:55 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 14, 5:03 pm, "Scout"

> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>>

>> news:79eefe69-ef83-4300...@o13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 9:01 pm, "Scout"

>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>

>>>> news:4207d6c7-935e-4fe7...@w2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On Aug 10, 12:45 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Nickname unavailable <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>>>>>> innews:bed9515b-945a-4a10...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 8, 12:22 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> innews:d2fb6c

>>>>>>> 13-e061-402d-baaa-d45b99555...@o7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

>>>>>>> beef? your type simply cannot supply it. its a right for americans

>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> vote without poll taxes, period.
>>

>>>>>> Requiring you to identify yourself at the polls is NOT a poll tax.
>>
>>>>> sure it is. it requires you to purchase a i.d. that is conservative
>>>>> approved. its simply a poll tax in disguise. show me your papers
>>>>> conservative hey:)))))))
>>
>>>> Please indicate for me any state that requires a photo ID to vote which
>>>> does
>>>> not provide such an ID for free...
>>
>>>> -----> insert your list here
>>
>>>> If it's free, how can it be a "poll tax"?
>>
>>> then the person who has to apply for the i.d., gets a free postage
>>> marked envelope to apply for the i.d.,
>>
>> Unless I can get a similar free postage envelope without having to lie about
>> why I can't go to the polls. then NO.
>>
>
>
> no, you have not answered me, if you have to spend money to get other
> id's as proof, if you have to mail or pay for a ride to get "THE
> CONSERVATIVE" police state papers, then its a poll tax, and a attempt
> to keep millions from voting, because "THE CONSERVATIVES" are running
> out of al bundys, homer simpson, archie bunker types. "THE
> CONSERVATIVES" hate democracy, just as hitler, mao, stalin, and
> musolinni hated democracy.


If you have to spend your money due to the government that is one thing,
but if you have to spend your money NOT because of the government, but
just to exercise your RIGHT, it's your problem.


The government can't charge you a tax to get a gun but the government is
is NOT required to buy you that gun. The same with voting, the
government can't cost you (charge) you or tax you to vote, but then they
also don't have to send a Limousine yo pick you up and get you to the
voting booth.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I doubt that the congress has the power to regulate and tell the States
that they have no choice but to pass laws that protect banks and serve
them after a bank robbery. That is States Rights. Or in this case,
Federal supremacy and a Federal problem.

To start with you just explained that the Federal government has
Supremacy and you phrased it as...
["The U.S. Constitution overrides ANY state (or local) law that violates

it. Without that you, or any citizen, would have no Constitutionally

protected rights."]

SO from what I see, it means that Congress has the sole responsibility
and is Supremely responsible for that bank and the crime and the
money.... And the AZ "Local Law Enforcement Officers" are only
responsible to assist as per the AZ laws require it and there are not
any federal objections.

Since the Feds decided to limit Arizona's ability to herd the illegals
to the Federal system, the States Legislators should respond in kind and
tell the Feds to FUCK OFF and any bank robbery is NO longer going to be
worked with State assets.

One good turn deserves another..... That way the Feds and the FDIC
pay the price of their arrogance. Suddenly those illegals that cost
Arizona and the Feds don't care, are offset by the savings of NOT
running after Bank robbers because that cost is NOW on the Feds. Why
should Arizona care about the cost to the Feds when the Feds don't care
about the illegals costing the State of Arizona.




Follow the constitution.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/16/2012 9:13 AM, Tecknomage wrote:

I doubt that the congress has the power to regulate and tell the States
that they have no choice but to pass laws that protect banks and serve
them after a bank robbery. That is States Rights. Or in this case,
Federal supremacy and a Federal problem.

To start with you just explained that the Federal government has
Supremacy and you phrased it as...

["The U.S. Constitution overrides ANY state (or local) law that violates

it. Without that you, or any citizen, would have no Constitutionally

protected rights."]

SO from what I see, it means that Congress has the sole responsibility
and is Supremely responsible for that bank and the crime and the
money.... And the AZ "Local Law Enforcement Officers" are only
responsible to assist as per the AZ laws require it and there are not
any federal objections.

Since the Feds decided to limit Arizona's ability to herd the illegals
to the Federal system, the States Legislators should respond in kind and
tell the Feds to FUCK OFF and any bank robbery is NO longer going to be
worked with State assets.

One good turn deserves another..... That way the Feds and the FDIC
pay the price of their arrogance. Suddenly those illegals that cost
Arizona and the Feds don't care, are offset by the savings of NOT
running after Bank robbers because that cost is NOW on the Feds. Why
should Arizona care about the cost to the Feds when the Feds don't care
about the illegals costing the State of Arizona.




Follow the constitution.

I just heard that "Governor Jan Brewer" signed an executive order
saying that illegals won't be getting welfare in the State of Arizona.

It was an extension of the existing law that says illegals can't get a
drivers license from the State of Arizona.

That was a chuckle.... and a sharp stick in he eye for Eric Holder and
Obama.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/16/2012 9:13 AM, Tecknomage wrote:

I doubt that the congress has the power to regulate and tell the States
that they have no choice but to pass laws that protect banks and serve
them after a bank robbery. That is States Rights. Or in this case,
Federal supremacy and a Federal problem.

To start with you just explained that the Federal government has
Supremacy and you phrased it as...

["The U.S. Constitution overrides ANY state (or local) law that violates

it. Without that you, or any citizen, would have no Constitutionally

protected rights."]

SO from what I see, it means that Congress has the sole responsibility
and is Supremely responsible for that bank and the crime and the
money.... And the AZ "Local Law Enforcement Officers" are only
responsible to assist as per the AZ laws require it and there are not
any federal objections.

Since the Feds decided to limit Arizona's ability to herd the illegals
to the Federal system, the States Legislators should respond in kind and
tell the Feds to FUCK OFF and any bank robbery is NO longer going to be
worked with State assets.

One good turn deserves another..... That way the Feds and the FDIC
pay the price of their arrogance. Suddenly those illegals that cost
Arizona and the Feds don't care, are offset by the savings of NOT
running after Bank robbers because that cost is NOW on the Feds. Why
should Arizona care about the cost to the Feds when the Feds don't care
about the illegals costing the State of Arizona.




Follow the constitution.



I just heard that "Governor Jan Brewer" signed an executive order
saying that illegals won't be getting welfare in the State of Arizona.

It was an extension of the existing law that says illegals can't get a
drivers license from the State of Arizona.

That was a chuckle.... and a sharp stick in the eye for Eric Holder and
Obama.


--

*Rumination*

#14 - If more Government, solves all the problems, prison must be a
Socialists Utopia.... and a Club Med vacation for Liberals.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Aug 15, 12:30 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <gg...@sdpfifrm.com> wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> messagenews:gGQWr.218204$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all
his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective
bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor
Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the
Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that
created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able…
to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost
their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited.
Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an
hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for
unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly
because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even
bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any
protest.



http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7EugaH/www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm


Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs
placed him on the far right. 



Summary

Many conservatives accuse
Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named
"National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and
control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private
capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn
were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism
does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be
democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always
on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics
over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over
cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship
over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism,
nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness,
common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and
even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an
atheist. 



Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the
extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in
patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and
you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long
been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such
criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack,
claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the
political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is
that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the
state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this
term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of
political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic
(which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat"
party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether
Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually
was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level
anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all,
wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and
political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have
actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few
basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political
ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This
includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have
been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in
which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and
peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their
livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling
elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own
the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those
who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are
excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where
everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the
vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few
people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at
the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common
is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well
as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses.
Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own
companies that would operate on a free market, without any central
government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is
hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker
ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as
socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a
type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the
shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian
government. In variants of socialism that call for a central
government, that government is always a strong or even direct
democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator
claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a
"socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in
control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-
socialist. 

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers
controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke.
It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism.
Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of
production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power
over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the
enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the
decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the
enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent
orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933,
they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the
direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed,
making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following
Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of
the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful
without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure
of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in
response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler
exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their
labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were
empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German
businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power.
Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:
• "The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow
[Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the
masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly
'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to
keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample
supply of it." (2)
Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all
his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective
bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor
Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the
Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that
created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able…
to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost
their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited.
Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an
hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for
unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly
because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even
bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any
protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled
socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general?
Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:

The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following
principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are
generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in
every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political
beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true
of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a
leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the
right. These include:
• Individualism over collectivism.
• Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
• Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
• Merit over equality.
• Competition over cooperation.
• Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
• One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
• Capitalism over Marxism.
• Realism over idealism.
• Nationalism over internationalism.
• Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
• Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
• Gun ownership over gun control
• Common sense over theory or science.
• Pragmatism over principle.
• Religion over secularism.
Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in
his own words. Ultimately, Hitler's views are not monolithically
conservative -- on a few issues, his views are complex and difficult
to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them belong on the
far right:

Individualism over collectivism.

Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he
subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization
is wrong, for several reasons.

The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal
trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being
patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed
their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example:
as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in
the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to
the group.

The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to
individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally
responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If
you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing
business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a
collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person
inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an
"evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is not a
serious argument.

Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or
"conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism.
Much more important is how they approach their individualism and
collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power
distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority
rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule.
Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.

And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the
hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule.
But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that
conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the
church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.

Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he
raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not
identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people
in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state
as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf,
Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German
culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes
below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were
not part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany
(for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that
Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we
know it today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject
that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not
liberals.

As Hitler himself wrote:
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the
liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of
humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the
soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and
advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous
creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence
as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for
the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow
culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as
Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a
nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)

"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the
task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks
of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of
raising them to a dominant position." (6)
And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage
individuals to sacrifice themselves:
"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its
noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life
of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to
the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for
every truly human culture." (8)
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and
technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the
creative product of the Aryan." (9)

"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign
peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational
capacities dormant within them." (10)

"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop…
Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for a
short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present
culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it
awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)

"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline
of the hybrid product…" (12)

"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and
foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further
bastardization." (13)

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction
of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the
purity of our blood…" (14)
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction
"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that
nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs,
horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)

"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has
neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life.
It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the
healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's
own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and
one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be
considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the
nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the
service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all
who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and
therefore pass it on…" (16)
Merit over equality.
"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the
most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national
community to leading position and leading influence. But as in
economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must
struggle through for themselves…" (17)

"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive
at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be
recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)
Competition over cooperation.
"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to
fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this
world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always
been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the
very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of
the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking
revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and
realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations,
never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)

"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only
preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this
struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the
weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the
principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself
in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle…
If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won." (20)
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up
Hitler's political method in one sentence:
"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be
reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one
relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of
force." (21)
The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt
for pacifism:
"If the German people in its historic development had possessed that
herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other
peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of
the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no
one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained
what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining
and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of
tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword
of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher
culture." (22)

"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost
territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through
pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)

"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right
perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and
subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this
earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization
anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority
rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of
other people's wills and opinion." (25)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but
must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but
their master!" (26)

"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the
numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority
rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)

"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never
replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise
man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons,
and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning.
Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will
be made by one man." (29)

"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the
scales dropped from my eyes." (30)

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to
comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social
Democracy." (32)
Capitalism over Marxism.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:
"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt,
towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the
profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in
practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class
parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he
detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to
the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and
friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the
domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity;
internationalism versus nationalism." (33)
As Hitler himself would write:
"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the
question of the future of the German nation was the question of
destroying Marxism." (35)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the
political sphere." (36)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in
indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the
national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the
Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of
Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the
mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)
Realism over idealism.

Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists
use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who
believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among
peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an
unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter
it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of
the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own
twisted utopia, which he described:
"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be
possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the
obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and
strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only
too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to
serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more
than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep
into it…" (40)

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of
a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of
his nationality." (41)
Nationalism over internationalism.
"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their
international poisoners are exterminated." (42)

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the
national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but
in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the
people and the fatherland." (43)

"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather
its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work
will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead
them to the national community…" (44)
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they
imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few
exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of
Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on
earth." (45)

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this
world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which,
fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its
will against all others." (46)
Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's
politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet
frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism
practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical
treatment of animals.

Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs.
He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and
half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it
ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had
arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over
her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:
"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a
piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it,
saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to
eat meat." (47)
Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by
an association with his niece's death.

Gun ownership over gun control

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if
German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would
have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-
gun advocates often quote the following:
"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." -
Adolf Hitler
However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable
record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in
any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason
for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict
gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The
Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of
the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of
local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German
citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun
registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense
whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:
"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to
power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their
guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either.
There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in
Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork
and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have
been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be
presented as evidence."
On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany
passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially
tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street
violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and
poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after
Hitler came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law,
their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually
relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Common sense over theory or science.

Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:
"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things
ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In
many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so
swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the
individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find
application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man
working and earning his living in a definite field." (48)

"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but
it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The
result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls
down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in
life." (49)

"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work
primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of
absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only
secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the
development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and
determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility,
and only in last place comes scientific schooling." (50)

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed
and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will
not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)
Pragmatism over principle.
"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of
expediency and not of principle." (52)
Religion over secularism.

Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an
atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently
evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his
life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and
its power over the masses. Here is but one example:
"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its
doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and
research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one
little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that
its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater
adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality
are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once
established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body
the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than
ever." (53)
Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:
"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely
for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a
moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be
estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly
better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is
present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)
Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would
later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of
a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate
the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they
did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue
fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:
"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of
his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to
be in politics…" (55)

"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long
as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and
ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the
scheming of political parties." (56)

"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of
religious conviction for political ends." (57)

"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if
you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred
duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps
outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into
the other." (58)
Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at
the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called
himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist.
It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a
reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The
decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal
ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these
considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking
out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler
walked into his first German Worker's Party meeting:
"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people
sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very
obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like
himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of
playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established
parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)
Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer
like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-
wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this
reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life
instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in
the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did
the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in
spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come
under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship
with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.

In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in
favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor
Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian
Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German
Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:
"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and
Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject
was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism,
discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation
Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had
done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not
contradict him." (60)
As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always
been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism
therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The
Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and
Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The
Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius
XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured
divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would
say after Germany conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between
brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" --
Russia. (62)

Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with
the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually
become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the
Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises
which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic
organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops
were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see
to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what
those armed forces did). (63)

The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after
this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified
support. A bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement
with Hitler's case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64)
Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at
Trier: "With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the
new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General
Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)

Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi
bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up
Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was
dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard
to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled
the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and
subordinated it to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment.
Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis
required of it -- for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to
prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68)
Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third
Reich's best disseminators of propaganda.

Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately
improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally
signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly
relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday
by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding
thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to
celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become
quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered
France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew
over the churches for ten days.

But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over
the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there
are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the
Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German
Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not
protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend,
do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German
armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As
perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with
precisely that responsibility.

The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on
mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals,
benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1960), p. 263.

2. Ibid., p. 143.

3. Ibid., p. 264.

4. Hitler, quoted in Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny,
abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1971), p. 228.

5. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1962), pp. 393-4.

6. Ibid., p. 398.

7. Ibid., p. 297.

8. Ibid., p. 298.

9. Ibid., p. 290.

10. Ibid., pp. 291-2.

11. Ibid., p. 291.

12. Ibid., p. 401.

13. Ibid., p. 402.

14. Ibid., p. 214.

15. Ibid., p. 405.

16. Ibid., p. 404.

17. Ibid., p. 449.

18. Ibid., p. 289.

19. Ibid., p. 516-17.

20. Quoted in Bullock, pp. 11-12.

21. Ibid., p. 230.

22. Hitler, p. 396.

23. Ibid., p. 627.

24. Ibid., p. 288.

25. Ibid., p. 344.

26. Ibid., p. 465.

27. Ibid., p. 81.

28. Ibid., p. 82.

29. Ibid., p. 449.

30. Ibid., p. 60.

31. Ibid., p. 78

32. Ibid., p. 51.

33. Bullock, p. 228-9.

34. Hitler, p. 535.

35. Ibid., p. 155.

36. Quoted in Bullock, p. 102.

37. Hitler, p. 376.

38. Ibid., p. 382.

39. Ibid., p. 65.

40. Ibid., p. 437.

41. Ibid., p. 299.

42. Ibid., p. 338.

43. Ibid., p. 340.

44. Ibid., p. 340.

45. Ibid., p. 284.

46. Ibid., p. 351.

47. The History Place, "The Rise of Adolf Hitler: Success and a
Suicide," http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/success.htm

48. Hitler, p. 418.

49. Ibid., p. 429.

50. Ibid., p. 408.

51. Ibid., p. 408.

52. Ibid., p. 346.

53. Ibid., p. 459.

54. Ibid., p. 267.

55. Ibid., p. 116.

56. Ibid., p. 116.

57. Ibid., p. 268.

58. Ibid., p. 563.

59. Bullock, p. 35.

60. Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London and New
York) 1964, p. 50ff.

61. Friedrich Heer, God's First Love (New York: Weybright and Talley,
1967), p. 320, citing Lewy, pp. 249-250; see also Falconi, Carlo, Il
silenzio di Pio XII (Milan) 1965.

62. Heer, p. 319.

63. Lewy, p. 57 ff.

64. Ibid., p. 94 ff.

65. Ibid., p. 100f.

66. Ibid., p. 105.

67. Heer, p. 310.

68. Heer, p. 110.

69. Giovannetti, A., Der Vatikan und der Krieg (Cologne) 1961.

70. Lewy, p. 304.

[Eddie Haskell]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

news:d83210b0-afca-41b4...@x16g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 15, 12:30 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <gg...@sdpfifrm.com> wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> messagenews:gGQWr.218204$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> > On 8/15/2012 12:38 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >> On Aug 14, 4:08 am, Gunner <Gunner Asch> wrote:
>
> >> you can blame the state of texas for any education shortfalls. but in
> >> your world, the corporate school system is a more desired system.
>
> > Since the Government schools are a failure, there is no need to continue
> > to waste money on a system that succeeds only 50% of the time, we could
> > flip a coin and get that kind of number.
>
> > What's more likely is that these Government schools are driving smart
> > kids to failure. Government schools teach kids to be stupid and sponge
> > off the government.
>
> Yeah but BRAACK more money for education. BRAACK!
>
> -Eddie Haskell

> Once in power, Hitler

_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the Negro |
/ O O\_ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

<snip>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAf4XbffcE

-Eddie Haskell

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On Aug 14, 10:15 pm, "Scout"

> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>>

>> news:20fbd9dc-32f4-4b17...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 13, 9:17 pm, "Scout"

>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>

>>>> news:cca1cd9e-4dc7-4777...@a1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On Aug 10, 10:26 pm, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
>>>>>> innews:k03tad$6km$1...@dont-email.me:

>>
>>>>>>> "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:TvCdnYBUAuiDhbjN...@posted.localnet...
>>>>>>>> Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:k02bl4$62u$1...@dont-email.me:

>>>>>>>>> Heck, for that matter where does the Constitution state they can
>>>>>>>>> regulate
>>>>>>>>> things that aren't even in commerce....interstate or intrastate?
>>>>>>>>> Specifically, a farmer growing grain for his own personal use.

>>>>>>>> That HAS to rank as one of the worst decisions ever.
>>>>>>> Particularly when you consider it has YET to be overturned and is
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> basis
>>>>>>> of so many violations of the Constitution....
>>
>>>>>> Including ObamaCare.
>>
>>>>> its constitutional, get over it.
>>

>>>> Cite the power granted within the Constitution that makes it so.
>>
>>> the supreme court just said its constitutional.
>>
>> They also said that racial discrimination was Constitutional. Didn't mean it
>> was.


And what's more, they still discriminate and they call it affirmative
action, so if we want JIM CROW laws all we need to do is call those
Affirmative action laws....

They flip flopped the discrimination by relabeling it. They say up is
down and in is out, that's the Democrat-Liberal way and then once
renamed they use it.

This is what happened, discrimination was renamed and was then the NEW
DISCRIMINATION and was adopted again by Democrat-Liberals. They
couldn't call it discrimination so they set to work calling it
affirmative action and it does the same thing as Jim Crow
discrimination, I would say the only difference is how it's being used
to discriminate against the blacks and minorities, but it's the same
people using *discrimination* and that's "DEMOCRATS".

Southern Democrats used the JIM CROW discrimination laws before... and
today it's Democrats that use Jim Crow style affirmative action laws.

The Democrats have managed to destroy the black family structure so the
damage is worse than the original Jim Crow type discrimination but this
affirmative action type of discrimination is much much more insidious.


It is interesting that Democrats newer duplicitous approach is working
so well that the bleeding heart Liberals are destroying the Black
culture more so than any Jim Crow Law could have ever done. They're now
convincing blacks that with Affirmative action laws that promote gays in
the black community is part of their heritage and they should embrace
Gays and fatherless families as a positive change, a change for the
better.....


Yet the problems in the black family structure like that of blacks under
slavery was the break up of the Family. Then Liberal eugenics tried to
implement other reasons to attack the blacks family and now today's use
of affirmative action has managed to successfully implement the Liberals
long attempted destruction of the black family.... and the blacks are
helping decimate their own population with abortions and gay right for
marriage and fatherless families with kids that grow up to kill each
other.


The Liberals eugenics war on minorities is finally seeing some success.

--

*Rumination*

#62 - Democrats have created a Matrix to convince you life is good....

you might call them the Liberal-Socialist "MACHINE" that has created
your matrix.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/21/2012 12:39 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Aug 16, 5:36 pm, "Scout"

> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
>>

>> news:6e80de8a-03c2-477a...@j3g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 10:09 pm, "Scout"

>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>

>>>> news:c9c122ff-a692-4ed1...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On Aug 13, 9:05 pm, "Scout"

>>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>

>>>>>> news:54048114-8050-415b...@t7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 4:11 pm, "Scout"

>>>>>>> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>

>>>>>>>> news:8f380f57-b469-485d...@n13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 8:44 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> innews:k02bl4$62u$1...@dont-email.me:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Heck, for that matter where does the Constitution state they
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> regulate
>>>>>>>>>>> things that aren't even in commerce....interstate or
>>>>>>>>>>> intrastate?
>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, a farmer growing grain for his own personal use.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> That HAS to rank as one of the worst decisions ever.
>>

>>>>>>>>> its un-american to dis the constitution.
>>
>>>>>>>> I acknowledge your lack of reading comprehension.
>>
>>>>>>>> Free hint: It's not the Constitution being bashed.
>>
>>>>>>> constitutional law is the constitution.
>>
>>>>>> "Constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> United States Constitution. "
>>
>>>>>> http://www.statelawyers.com/Practice/Practice_Detail.cfm/PracticeType...
>>
>>>>>> Wrong again.
>>
>>>>> constitutional law is derived from the constitution,
>>
>>>> Wrong. Constitutional law is derived from interpretation of the
>>>> Constitution, and the laws that implement the powers of the Constitution.
>>
>>>> Read the definition above again.
>>
>>> once a right is deemed constitutional, its constitutional.
>>
>> So when SCOTUS deemed that 'Separate but Equal" was constitution in that it
>> gave people the right to engage in racial discrimination, then it's
>> Constitutional then, now, and for all time?
>
> no, i said its constitutional till its not.
>


How will we know when that is, if they don't interpret it on a daily basis?


We may be doing something unconstitutional when it isn't and receive
jail/prison time for doing something that is unconstitutional but was
never re-interpreted. Or it may be that we are having our rights
violated by one interpretation, until we get an interpretation that
interprets that other interpretation.


Can the court create an interpretation that violates my rights....?

Can a commerce law be interpreted as a tax law, and that tax law then be
held as constitutional when it has yet to be interpreted as a law that
re-institutes slavery?


You just have to love this Liberal circular logic.



THE CONSTITUTION IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.




--

*Rumination*
#61 - You can't write computer code that is irrational and expect it to
work. This Liberal-Socialist Matrix is flawed and failing.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 8/4/2012 4:15 PM, Fair Play wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 11:34:37 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>> news:d6jo1814p7sab3ib1...@4ax.com:
>>

>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:28:03 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>> news:hnfo185lttddk0kqk...@4ax.com:
>>>>

>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:35:06 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fair Play <us...@example.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:gt5o18t61a559fjq1...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>

> You want to disenfranchise voters who don't have photo ID.
>
> Old folk who have voted for decades, finding themselves turned away
> at polling stations after waiting hours to try to vote?
>
> America already has one of the lowest participation rates in elections
> and you want to reduce the participation even further?
>
> The goal isn't to reduce non existent voter fraud but to prevent folk
> voting.
>
That would be why you need a PHOTO ID to buy a gun....


To get rid of the elderly buyers and lower 2nd amendment participation
and to prevent folks from owning and using their firearms.

But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination

for requiring a Photo ID to vote. And doesn't that mean that if Eric

Holder wins that SCOTUS will also be saying that requiring a photo ID
for exercising your gun rights is discrimination?

ERIC HOLDER MUST WANT THE MEXICAN DRUG LORDS TO VOTE IN TEXAS AND BUY
GUNS WITH NO PHOTO ID LAWS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

And why THE IRS will hold your 401c3 or c4 determination for 3 years?


To get rid of the elderly buyers and TEA PARTY VOTERS and lower 2nd
amendment participation AND TAX REVOLT activity and to prevent folks
from owning and using their firearms. AND VOTING NO TO NEW TAXES.

...talk about discriminating against VOTERS and election laws.....

But isn't Eric Holder suing TEXAS on the ground that it's discrimination

for requiring a Photo ID to vote WHILE HE IGNORES THE IRS IS TARGETIN
TEA PARTY PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. And doesn't
that mean that *if* Eric Holder wins the Texas suit that SCOTUS will

also be saying that requiring a photo ID for exercising your gun rights

is discrimination? And isn't ERIC HOLDER IGNORING ALL THE TEA PARTY
COMPLAINTS WHILE TAKING ACTION AGAINST TEXAS VOTER ID COMPLAINTS. SO HE
IS YET AGAIN DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE TEA PARTY FOR A SECOND TIME.

Isn't Eric Holder compounding the FEDERAL governments TARGETING of TEA
PARTY GROUPS by also discriminating against them when he ignores their
complaints of IRS discrimination?

ERIC HOLDER MUST WANT THE MEXICAN DRUG LORDS TO VOTE IN TEXAS AND BUY

GUNS WITH NO PHOTO ID LAWS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM. But he wants
to stop AMERICAN CITIZENS IN THE TEA PARTY from VOTING and campaigning
IN THOSE SAME ELECTIONS.