Texas justice!........or Texas racism?

[Sid9]

Judge sends honor student to jail for missing school

By David Ferguson

Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:30 EDT

A Houston-area teenager has been jailed and fined for missing school by a
judge who hopes to make an example of her. 17-year-old Diane Tran is working
two jobs while taking advanced placement and dual credit courses at Willis
High School in Willis, Texas. Some mornings, she is simply too exhausted to
make it to school on time. Some days she misses classes altogether.

She was warned by Judge Lanny Moriarty in April not to miss any more school.
When she missed school again last week, he sentenced her to 24 hours behind
bars and a $100 fine.

"If you let one of 'em run loose, what are you gon' do with the rest of 'em,
let them go too?" the judge offered as justification.

A reporter from Houston's KHOU relayed to the judge that Tran is working to
support an older brother who attends Texas A&M University and a younger
sister. Her parents divorced "out of the blue" last year and both moved
away, her mother to Georgia, leaving the high schooler on her own in Willis.
She is working part time at a wedding venue and full time at a dry cleaning
business just to stay afloat.

When confronted with the facts in the case, Judge Moriarty admitted to KHOU
that he could perhaps have been more lenient, but that the hadn't given any
thought to reversing the sentence.

--
Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
solution and its always wrong!"

[clairbear]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:jprci2$nic$1...@dont-email.me:

The law is the law' you silly twit. If it is not a just law then it
should be challenged If it is just then it should be enforced.
Personally its abit extreme but it is the law until it is change or
ruled unconstitutional. Like so many things you are against it comes
down to personal resposibilty.

http://responsibility-project.libertymutual.com/blog/the-truancy-law?
src=keyword_s=ggl_K=truancy%
20laws_C=Responsibility_G=TruancyLaw_Truancy_M=p&K_CLICKID=44b28de3-
a42b-c5a8-2b35-00000562b480#fbid=NwpSQelbrwF&src=keyword_s

The Truancy Law

January 7, 2012 by Andrea Bennett

Is it right to send parents of children with excessive school absences
to jail?

Brought to you by Liberty Mutual's The Responsibility Project


School districts battling irresponsible parenting and increasing student
absences have come up with a system for punishing truancies: your kids
don’t get detention – you go straight to prison and serve time for their
unauthorized absences.

The law was most recently adopted by Florida’s Palm Beach County school
district. If students miss too much school – more than 15 days over a
three-month period – parents could serve jail time. It’s not a new
concept; according to the Florida Sun Sentinel, the state has long had a
law requiring that parents face up to two months of jail time for a
child with excessive truancies. However, there was no way to enforce the
law until recently, when a new court was formed by the state to
concentrate on truancy cases.

According to the Sentinel, the issue is surprisingly pervasive. In the
2009-2010 school year, over 6 percent of the county’s nearly 200,000
students were absent at least 21 times without an excuse.

Several other states are in favor of strict truancy policies, as well.
In Orange County, Calif., at least five parents have gone to jail since
a tough anti-truancy law went into effect earlier this year. Nearly a
dozen parents in Baltimore City were sent to prison for their kids’
absences earlier this year according to the Baltimore Sun. And
according to Yahoo News, judges in Alabama, Texas and North Carolina –
among other states – have also used truancy laws to send parents to
jail.

So is the threat of jail time the best motivator for parents to get
their kids back in the classroom? There’s the obvious paradox, summed up
by Amy Reiter of The Stir: “If the parent is in jail, how will she then
help get her kid to school?” And some parents’ extenuating circumstances
make it difficult for them to ensure their children’s attendance. One
Palm Beach mother suffering from lupus told the Sun Sentinel that her
condition made it impossible for her to walk them to and from school, so
her 8- and 10-year-old daughters missed more than two weeks of class. “I
knew it was illegal for them not to go, but I couldn’t walk them there,”
Genese Adams said. A Boys Town social worker went to her home and helped
her get public bus passes.

Earlier this year, according to the Yahoo News story, the NAACP filed
suit against a school district in Pennsylvania that had fined a woman
$8,000 over her children’s truancy. The organization argued that the
kids had stopped going to school because they were being bullied and
harassed.

The bottom line, say bloggers like Reiter, is that teens need to learn
to take responsibility for their own attendance – and throwing mom or
dad in jail won’t have much impact on their still-developing senses of
personal responsibility.


http://www.houstonisd.org/portal/site/StudentSupportServices/menuitem.a2
de90fd3a201a57d91c2510e041f76a/?
vgnextoid=cdf66838c3a23210VgnVCM10000028147fa6RCRD&vgnextchannel=
8db3df788185f010VgnVCM10000028147fa6RCRD

Texas Truancy and Attendance Laws
It is each parent’s duty to require his or her school-aged children to
attend school, monitor the students' attendance, and request a
conference with school officials to discuss any attendance concerns. In
HISD schools, a student must attend at least 93 percent of the days the
course meets during the school year in order to receive credit for a
course. Students with excessive absences will automatically be referred
to the principal or Attendance Committee of the school to determine
whether credit may be awarded. Students and parents must use the
established school process for appealing credit lost due to excessive
absences.
State law (Texas Education Code Section 25.085; PDF) provides that if a
student is absent from school without parental consent for any portion
of the school day for three days in a four-week period or for ten or
more days in a six-month period, the student and the student’s parent or
legal guardian are subject to prosecution by the Harris County Justice
of the Peace Courts or Municipal Courts. The student may also be
referred to a juvenile court.
Principals may excuse absences for personal illness, death in the
family, or other legitimate reasons. Teachers will give students an
opportunity to make up work for all absences

[clairbear]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:0ga3s7pd6lrh782nergsansrh7ordmf6hb@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:27:55 -0500, clairbear
> <clai...@sidsatwit.com> wrote:
>
>>The law is the law' you silly twit.
>

> So were miscegenation laws
Anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court of the United States
> and the myriad of present laws passed to suppress women's rights
What laws suppress womens rights? There are none!
> Just because they are "laws"---don't make them right.
Like I said if you had any skill for comprehesion if the laws is not just
the it should be ruled unconstitutional just like the mandates in
Obamacare
>
So you are syaing YOU against education Truancy is a problem in many school
and laws have be enacted to lower truancy levels. That is what the thread
is about, simpleton

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:27:55 -0500, clairbear <clai...@sidsatwit.com>
wrote:

>don? get detention ?you go straight to prison and serve time for their
>unauthorized absences.
>
>The law was most recently adopted by Florida? Palm Beach County school
>district. If students miss too much school ?more than 15 days over a
>three-month period ?parents could serve jail time. It? not a new

>concept; according to the Florida Sun Sentinel, the state has long had a
>law requiring that parents face up to two months of jail time for a
>child with excessive truancies. However, there was no way to enforce the
>law until recently, when a new court was formed by the state to
>concentrate on truancy cases.
>
>According to the Sentinel, the issue is surprisingly pervasive. In the

>2009-2010 school year, over 6 percent of the county? nearly 200,000

>students were absent at least 21 times without an excuse.
>
>Several other states are in favor of strict truancy policies, as well.
>In Orange County, Calif., at least five parents have gone to jail since
>a tough anti-truancy law went into effect earlier this year. Nearly a

>dozen parents in Baltimore City were sent to prison for their kids?

>absences earlier this year according to the Baltimore Sun. And

>according to Yahoo News, judges in Alabama, Texas and North Carolina ?
>among other states ?have also used truancy laws to send parents to

>jail.
>
>So is the threat of jail time the best motivator for parents to get

>their kids back in the classroom? There? the obvious paradox, summed up
>by Amy Reiter of The Stir: ?f the parent is in jail, how will she then
>help get her kid to school??And some parents?extenuating circumstances
>make it difficult for them to ensure their children? attendance. One

>Palm Beach mother suffering from lupus told the Sun Sentinel that her
>condition made it impossible for her to walk them to and from school, so

>her 8- and 10-year-old daughters missed more than two weeks of class. ?
>knew it was illegal for them not to go, but I couldn? walk them there,?

>Genese Adams said. A Boys Town social worker went to her home and helped
>her get public bus passes.
>
>Earlier this year, according to the Yahoo News story, the NAACP filed
>suit against a school district in Pennsylvania that had fined a woman

>$8,000 over her children? truancy. The organization argued that the

>kids had stopped going to school because they were being bullied and
>harassed.
>
>The bottom line, say bloggers like Reiter, is that teens need to learn

>to take responsibility for their own attendance ?and throwing mom or
>dad in jail won? have much impact on their still-developing senses of

>personal responsibility.
>
>
>http://www.houstonisd.org/portal/site/StudentSupportServices/menuitem.a2
>de90fd3a201a57d91c2510e041f76a/?
>vgnextoid=cdf66838c3a23210VgnVCM10000028147fa6RCRD&vgnextchannel=
>8db3df788185f010VgnVCM10000028147fa6RCRD
>
>Texas Truancy and Attendance Laws

>It is each parent? duty to require his or her school-aged children to

>attend school, monitor the students' attendance, and request a
>conference with school officials to discuss any attendance concerns. In
>HISD schools, a student must attend at least 93 percent of the days the
>course meets during the school year in order to receive credit for a
>course. Students with excessive absences will automatically be referred
>to the principal or Attendance Committee of the school to determine
>whether credit may be awarded. Students and parents must use the
>established school process for appealing credit lost due to excessive
>absences.
>State law (Texas Education Code Section 25.085; PDF) provides that if a
>student is absent from school without parental consent for any portion
>of the school day for three days in a four-week period or for ten or

>more days in a six-month period, the student and the student? parent or

>legal guardian are subject to prosecution by the Harris County Justice
>of the Peace Courts or Municipal Courts. The student may also be
>referred to a juvenile court.
>Principals may excuse absences for personal illness, death in the
>family, or other legitimate reasons. Teachers will give students an
>opportunity to make up work for all absences

What is the age that kids in Texas can quit school?

Why was she even trying to work two jobs and
go to school?

A kind hearted lawyer should file papers asking
that she be deemed to be an adult caring for her
siblings in the absence of their parents.

[clairbear]

emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in
news:l7c3s7hdbsiprqi2v...@4ax.com:

not sure but if she is an honors student I think school was important to
here

> Why was she even trying to work two jobs and
> go to school?

Seems childrens services may have let her fall through the cracks>

> A kind hearted lawyer should file papers asking
> that she be deemed to be an adult caring for her
> siblings in the absence of their parents.
>
>

That may work for her. But the sentence was only 24 hours

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:14:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:27:55 -0500, clairbear
><clai...@sidsatwit.com> wrote:
>

>>The law is the law' you silly twit.
>

>So were miscegenation laws

>
>and the myriad of present laws passed to suppress women's rights
>

>Just because they are "laws"---don't make them right.

Well, pass some more, that is what democrats
are good at.

[clairbear]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in
news:lt94s7h8an0lreeon...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 26 May 2012 23:36:16 -0500, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:0ga3s7pd6lrh782nergsansrh7ordmf6hb@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:27:55 -0500, clairbear
>>> <clai...@sidsatwit.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The law is the law' you silly twit.
>>>
>>> So were miscegenation laws
>>Anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the
>>Supreme Court of the United States
>>> and the myriad of present laws passed to suppress women's rights
>
>>What laws suppress womens rights? There are none!
>

> Dozens in the last year alone passed and signed by wingers---force
> women to have a "wand" shoved up them for no reason. Laws passed the
> remove medicine and dozens of medical procedures because your wingers
> have placed religious doctrine into public law.
>
> Hundreds of thousands of elgible voters have now been precluded from
> voting---targeted by wingers because they are more likely to vote for
> good guys who represent them, not corporations
>
> The list is long.
So post a list To suppport your LIE O that's right you can't because
YOU ARE A WELL KNOWN LIAR

>>> Just because they are "laws"---don't make them right.
>
>>Like I said if you had any skill for comprehesion if the laws is not
>>just the it should be ruled unconstitutional just like the mandates
>>in Obamacare
>
>

> The law Obama signed was a REPUBLICAN law, originated by a REPUBLICAN
> policy institution (the heritage foundation) and PRAISED by
> Republicans when they did---so much so that Romney put it in place as
> a governor.
So how many republican Voted for Obamacare The final vote tally for the
Senate version of President Obama's health care reform legislation in
the House was 219-212, with 34 Democrats joining all Republicans in
opposition.
The key takeaway for opposition groups is that Speaker Pelosi needed to
make a last-day deal with Rep. Bart Stupak and his small group of pro-
life Democrats in order to achieve passage. That deal came in the form
of an executive order from the White House, which we explained here.
Democrats who opposed were:
Adler, Altmire, Arcuri, Barrow, Berry, Boren, Boucher, Bright, Chandler,
Childers, A.Davis, L.Davis, C.Edwards, Herseth Sandlin, Holden, Kissell,
Kratovil, Lipinski, Lynch, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, McMahon,
Melancon, Minnick, Nye, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Space, Tanner,
Taylor, Teague
THAT'S LIE #2

>>So you are syaing YOU against education Truancy is a problem in many
>>school and laws have be enacted to lower truancy levels. That is what
>>the thread is about, simpleton
>

> NO, the issue is rightwing power and control of people---the hypocrisy
> of saying they're for "less government"---yet in EVERY category doing
> the opposite.

>
"Judge sends honor student to jail for missing school

By David Ferguson

Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:30 EDT

A Houston-area teenager has been jailed and fined for missing school by
a
judge who hopes to make an example of her. 17-year-old Diane Tran is
working
two jobs while taking advanced placement and dual credit courses at
Willis
High School in Willis, Texas. Some mornings, she is simply too exhausted
to
make it to school on time. Some days she misses classes altogether."

Here again YOU LIE
ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE PROVE TO BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST LYING LOONS ON THE
USENET

[Sid9]

"clairbear" <clai...@sidsatwit.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA05FEEAAB...@216.196.97.142...

.
.

The victim of Texas justice is an Asian.
Texas racism in action....maybe some envy, too.
This is one smart hardworking young woman who did not deserve this type of
treatment form a good old boy "judge"

[clairbear]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:jptaop$5ha$1...@dont-email.me:

So enforcing state laws designed to curb truancy is racism. Did you
start taking stupid pills? And what a draconian sentence, 1 day.
She had been before the judge before and was told not to miss school
again. technically she could have also faced contempt charges, so tell
us again how is a sentence of 1 day, when she had previously been given
a warning from the court, a race issue. If the law is wrong it should
be challenged in court

> This is one smart hardworking young woman who did not deserve this
> type of treatment form a good old boy "judge"

What kind of legal help did she get, that the circumstances of her life
were not brought out in open court? And why has the the Texas Child
Protective Services Division not gone after the parents who abandoned
hes and her young sister?

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 07:15:15 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sat, 26 May 2012 23:36:16 -0500, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>

>>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:0ga3s7pd6lrh782nergsansrh7ordmf6hb@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:27:55 -0500, clairbear
>>> <clai...@sidsatwit.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The law is the law' you silly twit.
>>>
>>> So were miscegenation laws
>>Anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme
>>Court of the United States
>>> and the myriad of present laws passed to suppress women's rights
>
>>What laws suppress womens rights? There are none!
>

>Dozens in the last year alone passed and signed by wingers---force
>women to have a "wand" shoved up them for no reason. Laws passed the
>remove medicine and dozens of medical procedures because your wingers
>have placed religious doctrine into public law.

>[snip]

What kind of wand are you talking about, you
have mentioned it before, and I don't know of any
law about shoving a wand up them.

[clairbear]

emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in
news:1jd4s71ko67pfmmj6...@4ax.com:

Gary "Yoorgloon" Rosells is well know as a liar who covers his lies with
more lies and never can cite real proof of any kind to support his lies

>
>
>

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:55:50 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:14:49 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>>What laws suppress womens rights? There are none!
>>>
>>>Dozens in the last year alone passed and signed by wingers---force
>>>women to have a "wand" shoved up them for no reason. Laws passed the
>>>remove medicine and dozens of medical procedures because your wingers
>>>have placed religious doctrine into public law.
>>>[snip]
>>
>> What kind of wand are you talking about, you
>>have mentioned it before, and I don't know of any
>>law about shoving a wand up them.
>

>It's called a "vaginal ultrasound probe" you moron

You need to update your information, invasive
procedures will not stand in court.

"The type of procedure will be left up to the
woman" seems to be what will emerge, almost
all late term ultrasounds to determine health
problems and sex of child are not invasive.

In your sick mind having a harmless
medical procedure seems to be worse than
having a helpless baby torn apart by hooks
within the body.


The idea of a woman seeing just what
she is asking for is a good idea, invasive
procedures are not.

Be careful what you ask for.

[clairbear]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:im15s7961cvspavb7vemutn2khijimebuj@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 27 May 2012 09:28:04 -0500, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> What kind of wand are you talking about, you
>>> have mentioned it before, and I don't know of any
>>> law about shoving a wand up them.
>>>
>>Gary "Yoorgloon" Rosells is well know as a liar
>

> So---what the hell

YOU ARE A LIAR AND EVERYONE ON THE USENET KNOW IT

[clairbear]

emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in
news:bj35s7p9o4rlss5ub...@4ax.com:

Apparently yoorgloon has personal experience with the device He need
some realy good therapy by the sounds of it

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 26, 10:27 pm, clairbear <clairb...@sidsatwit.com> wrote:

read up on the Nuremberg Laws. you will see how conservative extremism
morphs into the murder of millions. in texas, and in every red state,
or even blue states that were stupid enough to vote conservative, are
heading down the road of extremism.
there is no room for real rule of law in a conservative society, only
actions that mask themselves as law.
that is why murder is so easily accepted in a conservative society.
we saw this recently when texas knowingly killed a innocent man, then
celebrated it.
we saw this celebration on alt.politic.economics. many conservative
posters even laughed at the results of a innocent person put to his
death by conservative extremism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Nuremberg Laws

Nuremberg Laws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For the set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war
crime, see Nuremberg principles. For the set of research ethics
principles for human experimentation, see Nuremberg Code.


Title page of RGB I No. 100 proclaiming the laws. Issued 16.09.1935.

German Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Nuremberg Laws
The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935 were
antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced at the annual Nuremberg
Rally of the Nazi Party. After the takeover of power in 1933 by
Hitler, Nazism became an official ideology incorporating antisemitism
as a form of scientific racism. There was a rapid growth in German
legislation directed at Jews, such as the Law for the Restoration of
the Professional Civil Service which banned "non-Aryans" from the
civil-service.
The lack of a clear legal method of defining who was Jewish had,
however, allowed some Jews to escape some forms of discrimination
aimed at them. The enactment of laws identifying who was Jewish made
it easier for the Nazis to enforce legislation restricting the basic
rights of German Jews.
The Nuremberg Laws classified people with four German grandparents as
"German or kindred blood", while people were classified as Jews if
they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with
one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of
"mixed blood".[1] These laws deprived Jews of German citizenship and
prohibited marriage between Jews and other Germans.[2]
The Nuremberg Laws also included a ban on sexual intercourse between
people defined as "Jews" and non-Jewish Germans and prevented "Jews"
from participating in German civic life. These laws were both an
attempt to return the Jews of 20th-century Germany to the position
that Jews had held before their emancipation in the 19th century;
although in the 19th century Jews could have evaded restrictions by
converting, this was no longer possible.
The laws were a legal embodiment of an already existing Nazi boycott
of Jewish businesses.
Contents  [hide]
• 1 Background history
• 2 Toward the Nuremberg Laws
• 3 Introduction
• 4 Laws
• 5 Effect
• 6 Nazi Eugenics and Racial belief
• 7 Impact outside Germany
• 8 Existing copies
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 Further reading
• 12 External links
[edit]
Background history


1935 chart from Nazi Germany used to explain the Nuremberg Laws
Before 1806, when general citizenship was largely non-existent in the
Holy Roman Empire, its inhabitants were subject to different estate
regulations. Varying from one territory of the Empire to another,
these regulations classified inhabitants into different groups, such
as dynasts, members of the court entourage, other aristocrats, city
dwellers (burghers), Jews, Huguenots (in Prussia a special estate
until 1810), free peasants, serfs, peddlers and Gypsies, with
different privileges and burdens attached to each classification.
Legal inequality was the principle.
The concept of citizenship was mostly restricted to cities, especially
free imperial cities. There was no general franchise, which remained a
privilege for the few, who inherited the status or acquired it when
they reached a certain level of taxed income or could afford the
expensive citizen's fee (Bürgergeld). Citizenship was often further
restricted to city dwellers affiliated with the locally dominant
Christian denomination (Calvinist, Catholic or Lutheran). City
dwellers of other denominations or religions and those who lacked the
necessary wealth to qualify as citizens were considered as mere
inhabitants who lacked political rights and were sometimes subject to
revocable staying permits.
Most Jews then living in German locales that allowed their settlement
were automatically defined as mere indigenous inhabitants, depending
on permits that were typically less generous than those granted to
Gentile indigenous inhabitants. In the 18th c. some Jews and their
families (such as Daniel Itzig in Berlin) gained equal status with
their fellow Christian city dwellers, but had a different status than
noblemen, Huguenots, or serfs. They often did not enjoy the freedom of
movement across territorial or even municipal boundaries, let alone
enjoy the same status in the new place as in the old.
With the abolition of legal status differences in the Napoleonic era
and its aftermath citizenship was established as a new franchise
generally applying to all former subjects of the monarchs. While
Jewish emancipation did not eliminate all forms of discrimination
against Jews, who often remained barred from holding official
positions with the State, such forms of discrimination were no longer
the guiding principle for ordering society, but a violation of it.
These restrictions were mostly abolished in the 1840s, in few smaller
states as late as 1869.
In the mid-19th century, the fiercely anti-Semitic völkisch movement
appeared in Germany. One of the major demands of the various völkisch
groups had been the disemancipation of German Jews and banning sexual
relations between those considered to be of the “Semitic race” and
those considered to be of the “Aryan race”. In 1881, a petition
presented to the German government by the völkisch groups demanding
Jewish disemancipation and the banning of marriage and sexual
intercourse between “Aryans” and “Jews” had collected over a million
signatures. Reflecting the strength of the völkisch movement, from
1892 when the so-called Tivoli Program was adopted, the Conservative
Party formally advocated disemancipation of German Jews.[3] In his
best-selling 1912 book Wenn ich der Kaiser wär (If I were the Kaiser),
Heinrich Class, the leader of one of the more powerful völkisch
groups, the Alldeutscher Verband, urged that all German Jews be
stripped of their German citizenship and be reduced to Fremdenrecht
(alien status).[4] Class went on to urge in Wenn ich der Kaiser wär
that Jews be totally excluded from all aspects of German life with
Class recommending that Jews be forbidden to own land, hold public
office, and to participate in journalism, banking, and the liberal
professions.[4]
[edit]
Toward the Nuremberg Laws
After the First World War, the Jews of Germany were among the most
assimilated in Western Europe, speaking German, as opposed to Yiddish,
as their first language. Many were secular or atheistic[citation
needed] and many had fought for Germany in the First World War.
The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), which had been
founded in 1919 as an offshoot of the völkisch movement, adopted the
movement's demands to disemancipate the Jews as its own.[5] Attacks on
Jews started shortly after the Nazi assumption of power on 30 January
1933, when Adolf Hitler assumed the Chancellorship. The Nazi boycott
of Jewish businesses, the first nationwide stage of the anti-Semitic
campaign, began on 1 April 1933.
However, the völkisch demand for laws disemancipating Jews and banning
sex or marriage between "non-Aryans" and "Aryans" were not immediately
met. A dispute between the Interior Ministry and the NSDAP over the
precise "racial" definition of a Jew, namely how many Jewish
grandparents did one have to have to be considered Jewish, led to the
entire process being hopelessly bogged down by 1935.[6]
The lack of a clear definition of who was a Jew confused efforts to
enforce anti-Semitic laws and measures. The first Nuremberg law,
nominally designed for the "prevention of the propagation of
hereditary illness", did not attack Jews explicitly. Other laws
claimed to preserve German blood and honour, but again were not
specifically anti-Semitic.[7]
During the spring and summer of 1935, many Alte Kämpfer (Old Fighters;
i.e. those who joined the Nazi Party before 1930, and who tended to be
the most ardent anti-Semites in the Party) and SA members,
disenchanted with unfulfilled promises by the Nazi party, were eager
to lash out against Germany's Jewish minority as a way of expressing
their frustrations against a group that the authorities would not
generally protect.[8] The German historian Hans Mommsen wrote about
the Alte Kämpfer that:
"After the Nazi seizure of power, those groups in the NSDAP that
originated in the extreme völkisch movement—including the vast
majority of the Alte Kämpfer—did not become socially integrated. Many
of them remained unemployed, while others failed to obtain posts
commensurate with the services they believed they had rendered the
movement. The social advancement that they had hoped for usually
failed to materialize. This potential for protest was increasingly
diverted into the sphere of Jewish policy. Many extremists in the
NSDAP, influenced by envy and greed as well as by a feeling that they
had been excluded from attractive positions within the higher civil
service, grew even more determined to act decisively and independently
in the "Jewish Question". The pressures exerted by the militant wing
of the party on the state apparatus were most effective when they were
in harmony with the official ideology".[9]
A Gestapo report from the spring of 1935 stated that the rank and file
of the Nazi Party would set in motion a solution to the "Jewish
problem" "by us from below that the government would then have to
follow".[8] The ensuing wave of assaults, vandalism and boycotts by
the Alte Kämpfer and SA members against German Jews in the spring and
summer of 1935 was far more violent than the anti-Semitic campaigns in
the two previous years.[10] As a result of this anti-Semitic
agitation, these matters were raised to the forefront of the state
agenda.[11] The Israeli historian Otto Dov Kulka, a leading expert on
public opinion in Nazi Germany argued that there was a vast disparity
of views between those of the Alte Kämpfer and the general German
public, but that even those Germans who were not politically active
favored bringing in tougher new anti-Semitic laws in 1935.[12]
Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, the Economics Minister and Reichsbank president,
criticized arbitrary behavior by Party members as this inhibited his
policy of developing the German economy.[13] From Dr. Schacht's
viewpoint, the violent anti-Semitic campaign waged by the Alte Kämpfer
and SA made no economic sense, since Jews were believed to have
certain entrepreneurial skills that could be usefully employed to
further his policies. Schacht made no moral condemnation of anti-
Jewish policy and advocated the passing of legislation to clarify the
situation. Following complaints from Dr. Schacht plus reports on the
public disagreement with the wave of anti-Semitic violence, Hitler
ordered a stop to "individual actions" against German Jews on 8 August
1935.[13] A conference of ministers was held on 20 August 1935 to
discuss the negative economic effects of Party actions against Jews.
Hitler argued that such effects would cease once the government
decided on a firm policy against the Jews. At the same time, the
Interior Minister Dr. Wilhelm Frick threatened to impose harsh
penalties on those Party members who ignored the order of 8 August and
continued to assault Jews.[13] From Hitler's perspective, it was
imperative to bring in harsh new anti-Semitic laws as a consolation
for those Party members who were disappointed with Hitler's order of 8
August, especially because Hitler had only reluctantly given the order
for pragmatic reasons, and his sympathies were with the Party radicals.
[13]
The seventh Nazi Party Rally was held in Nuremberg from 10–16
September 1935. It was meant to celebrate the Nazi regime's
renunciation of Part V of the Treaty of Versailles in March 1935,
which had disarmed Germany, hence its motto Party Rally of Freedom.
The rally saw the Reichstag pass the Reich Flag Law, which was
Hitler’s response to the "Bremen incident" of 26 July 1935 in New
York, in which a group of anti-Nazi demonstrators boarded the Bremen,
tore the Nazi party flag which the Bremen had been provocatively
flying from its jackstaff and tossed it into the Hudson River. When
the German Consul protested, U.S. officials responded that the German
national flag had not been harmed, only a political party symbol.[14]
On 15 September 1935 Hitler declared the Nazi Swastika flag the
national flag of Germany.[15][16][17]
The Party Rally of September 1935 had featured the first session of
the Reichstag held at that city since 1543.[18] Hitler had planned to
have the Reichstag pass a law making the Nazi Swastika flag the flag
of the German Reich, and a major speech in support of the impending
Italian aggression against Ethiopia.[18] However, at the last minute,
the German Foreign Minister Baron Konstantin von Neurath persuaded
Hitler to cancel his speech as being too provocative to public opinion
abroad as it blatantly contradicted the message of Hitler's "peace
speeches", thus leaving Hitler with the sudden need to have something
else to address the historic first meeting of the Reichstag in
Nuremberg since 1543, other than the Reich Flag Law.[18] Hitler's need
for something to present to the Reichstag was especially acute as he
had invited all of the senior foreign diplomats in Berlin to the Party
Rally of 1935 to hear what was billed as an especially important
speech on foreign policy.[9]
On 12 September 1935, two days after the beginning of the party rally,
leading Nazi physician Gerhard Wagner surprisingly announced in a
speech that the Nazi government would soon introduce a "law for the
protection of German blood" to prevent mixed marriages between Jews
and "Aryans" in the future. Hitler immediately decided to extend the
legal scope. On 13 September, Dr. Bernhard Lösener, the Interior
Ministry official in charge of drafting anti-Semitic laws together
with another Interior Ministry official, Ministerialrat (Ministerial
Counsellor) Franz Albrecht Medicus, was hastily summoned to the
Nuremberg Party Rally by plane by Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, the State
Secretary of the Interior Ministry, and directed to start drafting at
once a law for Hitler to present to the Reichstag for 15 September.
[19] Lösener and Medicus arrived in Nuremberg on the morning of 14
September.
Because of the short time available for the drafting of the laws, both
measures were hastily improvised—there was even a shortage of drafting
paper so that menu cards had to be used instead.[20] Such was the
degree of improvisation that Franz Gürtner, the Justice Minister,
first learned of the adoption of the laws from listening to the radio.
[9] Most of the debates about the drafting of the laws concerned a
precise definition of what constituted a Jew in Nazi "racial" terms,
i.e. how many Jewish grandparents one had to have in order to qualify
as Jewish under Nazi racial theories.[20]
Hitler himself spent the night of 14–15 September hesitant and
indecisive over just which of the various definitions of a Jew to
adopt, and finally excused himself from the debate.[9] On 15
September, Hitler presented the laws drafted by Stuckart, Lösener and
Medicus to the Reichstag.
[edit]
Introduction
On the evening of 15 September 1935, two measures were announced to
the Reichstag at the annual Party Rally in Nuremberg, becoming known
as the Nuremberg Laws.[18]
The first law, The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German
Honour,[21] prohibited marriages and extramarital intercourse between
"Jews" (the name was now officially used in place of "non-Aryans") and
"Germans" and also the employment of "German" females under forty-five
in Jewish households. The second law, The Reich Citizenship Law,[22]
declared those not of German blood to be Staatsangehörige (state
subjects) while those classified as "Aryans" were Reichsbürger
(citizens of the Reich).[23] Between November 1935 to July 1943, 13
implementation ordinances were issued dealing with the enforcement of
Reich Citizenship Law that progressively marginalized the Jewish
community in Germany.[23]
Hitler appeared before the Reichstag in Nuremberg, introducing the
laws and their alleged motivation, before the laws were formally read
and proposed for adoption by Hermann Göring, the President of the
Reichstag. In his speech he laid out his case for the new laws:
...Bitter complaints have come in from countless places citing the
provocative behavior of Jews....a certain amount of [conspiratorial]
planning was involved....[To prevent] vigorous defensive action by the
[Aryan] people,[24] we have no choice but to contain the problem
through legislative measures....it may be possible, through a
definitive secular solution, to create a basis on which the German
people can have a tolerable relationship with the Jews.[25] ... This
law is an attempt to find a legislative solution....if this attempts
fails, it will be necessary to transfer [the Jewish problem] ... to
the National Socialist Party for a final solution by law (German:
endgültige Lösung).[26]
The measures were unanimously adopted by the Reichstag. In 12 years of
Nazi rule, the Reichstag only passed four laws: the Nuremberg laws
were two of them.[27]
The Nuremberg Laws formalized the unofficial and particular measures
taken against Jews up to 1935. The Nazi leaders made a point of
stressing the consistency of this legislation with the Party
programme, which demanded that Jews should be deprived of their
citizenship rights.
[edit]
Laws
The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour
(September 15, 1935) Moved by the understanding that the purity of
German blood is essential to the further existence of the German
people, and inspired by the uncompromising determination to safeguard
the future of the German nation, the Reichstag has unanimously
resolved upon the following law, which is promulgated herewith:
Section 1
1. Marriages between Jews and citizens (German: Staatsangehörige) of
German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance
of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law,
they were concluded abroad.
2. Proceedings for annulment may be initiated only by the Public
Prosecutor.
Section 2
Extramarital sexual intercourse between Jews and subjects of the state
of Germany or related blood is forbidden.
• (Supplementary decrees set Nazi definitions of racial Germans,
Jews, and half-breeds or Mischlinge --- see the latter entry for
details and citations and Mischling Test for how such decrees were
applied. Jews could not vote or hold public office under the parallel
"citizenship" law.)
Section 3
Jews will not be permitted to employ female citizens under the age of
45, of German or kindred blood, as domestic workers.
Section 4
1. Jews are forbidden to display the Reich and national flag or the
national colours.
2. On the other hand they are permitted to display the Jewish
colours. The exercise of this right is protected by the State.
Section 5
1. A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 1 will be
punished with hard labour.
2. A person who acts contrary to the prohibition of Section 2 will be
punished with imprisonment or with hard labour.
3. A person who acts contrary to the provisions of Sections 3 or 4
will be punished with imprisonment up to a year and with a fine, or
with one of these penalties.
Section 6
The Reich Minister of the Interior in agreement with the Deputy Führer
and the Reich Minister of Justice will issue the legal and
administrative regulations required for the enforcement and
supplementing of this law.
Section 7
The law will become effective on the day after its promulgation;
Section 3, however, not until 1 January 1936.
[edit]
Effect


German Jewish passports could be used to leave, but not to return.
See also: Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany
Legal discrimination against Jews had come into being before the
Nuremberg Laws and steadily grew as time went on; however, for
discrimination to be effective, it was essential to have a clear
definition of who was or was not a Jew. This was one important
function of the Nuremberg laws and the numerous supplementary decrees
that were proclaimed to further them.
The Reich Citizenship Law had little practical effect as it deprived
German Jews only of the right to vote and hold office.[28] Much to the
fury of the Alte Kämpfer and the other radicals in the NSDAP, the
recommendation from the Interior Ministry that the Reich Citizenship
Law applied only to those classified as "full Jews" and those "half-
Jews" who practiced Judaism or were not in a mixed marriage was taken
up; those Mischling who were Christians or were in a mixed marriage
retained their German citizenship.[28] The NSDAP had wanted the Reich
Citizenship Law to apply to "Grade 1 and Grade 2 persons of mixed
descent".[28] The suggestion of Dr. Frick for creation of a tribunal
before which every German would have to prove that they were Aryans in
order to keep their German citizenship was not followed.[28] Because
of this, the Nuremberg Laws were highly unpopular with the Party
radicals.[28] Joseph Goebbels had the radio broadcast recording the
passing of the laws by the Reichstag cut short, and ordered the German
media not to mention the laws until a way of implementing them had
been found.[29] At a secret conference held in Munich on 24 September
to finally resolve the dispute over who was a "racial" Jew or who was
a "half-Jew", Hitler accepted Lösener's less sweeping definitions of
three or four Jewish grandparents, and ruled that the laws were not to
apply to those Mischling who were Christians and to "Grade 2 persons
of mixed descent".[29] However immediately afterwards in a meeting
with Martin Bormann, Hitler declared that paragraph six of the First
Ordinance of the Reich Citizenship was not to be applied in practice,
and instead accepted Bormann's suggestion of excluding Mischling from
a whole host of German institutions such as the DAF.[29]
People defined as Jews could then be barred from employment as
lawyers, doctors or journalists. Jews were prohibited from using state
hospitals and could not be educated by the state past the age of 14.
Public parks, libraries and beaches were closed to Jews. War memorials
were to have Jewish names expunged. Even the lottery could not award
winnings to Jews.[30] With the so-called Namensänderungsverordnung
("Regulation of Name Changes") of 17 August 1938, Jews with first
names of non-Jewish origin were required to adopt a middle name:
"Sara" for women and "Israel" for men. At the instigation of Swiss
immigration official Heinrich Rothmund, passports of German Jews were
required to have a large "J" stamped on them and could be used to
leave Germany—but not to return.[31]
The obligation to wear the yellow badge, introduced in German-occupied
Poland in September 1939, was extended to all Jewish people living
within the Nazi empire in September 1941.
Later death penalty was applied under Law for the Protection of German
Blood and Honour. For example, in a Nuremberg a Jewish businessman Leo
Kazenberger was accused of having a sexual relationship with a younger
German woman. He was denounced and arrested but he and his alleged
girlfriend denied the charges. The case was heard by Oswald Rothaug
who, according to many observers, used the case as an opportunity for
getting noticed by Hitler. Under wartime law when a crime had been
committed during blackout hours death penalty could be applied.
Kazenberger was sentenced to death and guillotined on 2 June 1942.[32]
[edit]
Nazi Eugenics and Racial belief
Main articles: Nazi eugenics and Nazism and race
The Nuremberg laws were based on a belief in Scientific racism and
derived from a primitive understanding of genetics. Although the Nazis
took these ideas to violent extremes, they were based on thinking that
already existed across Europe and America. Nazi laws banning "inter-
marriage" assumed that nations were "races" and that the Germans were
a Master race and in accordance with ideas expressed in Eugenics and
Social Darwinism[33]; they therefore sought to preserve their supposed
racial superiority by banning inter-marriage with people they regarded
as inferior or as a threat, in particular Jews and Gypsies.[34]
[edit]
Impact outside Germany
Allies of the Nazis passed their own versions of the Nuremberg laws
including The Law for Protection of the Nation in Bulgaria, in 1940
the ruling Iron Guard in Romania passed the Law defining the Legal
Status of Romanian Jews[35], in 1941 the Codex Judaicus was enacted in
Slovakia[36] and in 1941 the Ustasha in Croatia also passed
legislation defining who was a Jew and restricting contact with them.
[37] Hungary passed its first "Jewish Law" in May 1938 banning Jews
from various professions, further laws emulating the Nuremberg
regulations were added in 1941.[38]
[edit]
Existing copies
An original typescript of the laws signed by Hitler was found by the
203rd Detachment of the U.S. Army's Counter-Intelligence Corps (CIC),
commanded by Martin Dannenberg, in Eichstätt, Bavaria, on 27 April
1945. It was appropriated by General George S. Patton, in violation of
JCS 1067. During a visit to Los Angeles, he secretly handed it over to
the Huntington Library. The document was stored until 26 June 1999,
when its existence was revealed. Although legal ownership of the
document has not been established, it was given on permanent loan to
the Skirball Cultural Center, which placed it on public display three
days later, until the document's transfer to the National Archives in
Washington D.C. on 25 August 2010.[39]
[edit]
See also
• Law for Protection of the Nation
• Hans Globke
• Nazism and race
• Aryan paragraph
• Manifesto of Race in Italy
• Jim Crow Laws
• Apartheid
• Reichstag Fire Decree
• Visigothic Code
[edit]
References
1. ^ In many cases a person with exactly two Jewish grandparents was
deemed a "Jew". There were a number of legal tests used, to determine
if such a person—with precisely two Jewish grandparents—was to be
classified as a "Jew" or a "Mischling". See Mischling Test.
2. ^ Hunt, L. (2009). The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures,
Vol. C: Since 1740. Bedford/St. Martin's.
3. ^ Mosse, George| "Racism" pages 1217 pages 1206–1213 from The
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust Volume 3 edited by Israel Gutman, New
York: Macmillan, 1990.
4. ^ a b Friedländer, Saul Nazi Germany and the Jews: The Years of
Persecution, 1933–1939, New York : HarperCollins, 1997 page 76
5. ^ Broszat, Martin "National Socialism" pages 1033–1037 from The
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust edited by Israel Gutman, Volume 3,
Macmilllan: New York, 1990 page 1033
6. ^ Mommsen, Hans "The Realization of the Unthinkable: The "Final
Solution of the Jewish Question" in the Third Reich" pages 217–264
from The Nazi Holocaust Part 3 The "Final Solution": The
Implementation of Mass Murder Volume 1 edited by Michael Marrus,
Westpoint: Meckler, 1989 pages 222–223.
7. ^ Sereny, Gitta. Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth. New York:
Vintage, 1996. Print.
8. ^ a b Kershaw pp. 560–61.
9. ^ a b c d Mommsen, Hans "The Realization of the Unthinkable: The
"Final Solution of the Jewish Question" in the Third Reich" pages 217–
264 from The Nazi Holocaust Part 3 The "Final Solution": The
Implementation of Mass Murder Volume 1 edited by Michael Marrus,
Westpoint: Meckler, 1989 page 222
10. ^ Kershaw pp. 561–62.
11. ^ Bankier, David "Nuremberg Laws" pages 1076–1077 from The
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust Volume 3 edited by Israel Gutman, New
York: Macmillan, 1990 page 1077.
12. ^ Marrus, Michael The Holocaust In History, Toronto: Key Porter,
2000 pages 92–93
13. ^ a b c d Kershaw p. 563.
14. ^ Brian Leigh Davis: Flags & standards of the Third Reich,
Macdonald & Jane's, London 1975, ISBN 0-356-04879-9
15. ^ Huchthausen, Peter A. (2005). Shadow Voyage: The Extraordinary
Wartime Escape of the Legendary SS Bremen. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-45758-2. OCLC 55764562.
16. ^ Bailey, Bill (1993). "Chapter XIV: Ripping the Swastika off the
Bremen". The kid from Hoboken: an autobiography. San Francisco: Circus
Lithographic Prepress. OCLC 27835027. Retrieved 2 November 2007.
17. ^ "Historical flags (Germany)". Flags of the World. 27 December
2003. Retrieved 2 November 2007.
18. ^ a b c d Kershaw pp. 567–68.
19. ^ Kershaw p. 567.
20. ^ a b Kershaw pp. 568–70 & 759–60.
21. ^ Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German
Honor, English translation at the University of the West of England
22. ^ Reich Citizenship Law, English translation at the University of
the West of England
23. ^ a b Bankier, David "Nuremberg Laws" pages 1076–1077 from The
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust Volume 3 edited by Israel Gutman, New
York: Macmillan, 1990 page 1076
24. ^ It was a standard tactic of Hitler's to transfer the blame for
his aggressive actions onto his adversary so that his action was
simply a "defensive" one.
25. ^ Even a cursory review of Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches
before 1935 would make it clear to anyone that this prospect of "hope
of toleration" extended by Hitler is a blatant lie. See also Kershaw
p. 565.
26. ^ The ominous term "final solution" did not yet, in ordinary
discourse in 1935, necessarily entail the complete eradication of
European or World Jewry. Neither did it exclude that possibility.
27. ^ Shirer p. 234n. Most laws in the Nazi state were simply decreed
by Hitler under powers vested in him by the Enabling Act of 1933;
there was no legal need for the "legislature" here, and having the
Reichstag adopt these laws at the party rally was done for propaganda
purposes. Kershaw p. 268-75.
28. ^ a b c d e Mommsen, Hans "The Realization of the Unthinkable:
The "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" in the Third Reich" pages
217–264 from The Nazi Holocaust Part 3 The "Final Solution": The
Implementation of Mass Murder Volume 1 edited by Michael Marrus,
Westpoint: Meckler, 1989 page 224
29. ^ a b c Mommsen, Hans "The Realization of the Unthinkable: The
"Final Solution of the Jewish Question" in the Third Reich" pages 217–
264 from The Nazi Holocaust Part 3 The "Final Solution": The
Implementation of Mass Murder Volume 1 edited by Michael Marrus,
Westpoint: Meckler, 1989 page 225
30. ^ "Examples of Antisemitic Legislation, 1933–1939". United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum no. Retrieved 12 July 2008.
31. ^ "The Nuremberg Race Laws". United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum. Archived from the original on 24 April 2008. Retrieved 12 July
2008.
32. ^ Oswald Rothaug
33. ^ Science in the early twentieth century: an encyclopaedia by
Jacob Darwin Hamblin 2005, page 104
34. ^ See the Nazi post at
http://www2.facinghistory.org/Campus/rm.nsf/61A7F88FF16FBD9585256E8E001178AC/F71118D32CED30AB8525718000570CB1?OpenDocument,
See also http://www.thebreman.org/exhibitions/online/1000kids/racialtheory.html,
The Nuremburg Laws by Any Newman page 43
35. ^ The Routledge History of the Holocaust page 279
36. ^ A history of Slovakia: the struggle for survival by Stanislav
J. Kirschbaum page 197
37. ^ Serbia's Secret War: Propaganda and the Deceit of History by
Philip J. Cohen,David Riesman
38. ^ The Routledge History of the Holocaust page 250
39. ^ "Nuremberg Laws handed over to US National Archives". Daily
Telegraph, UK. 26 August 2010. Retrieved 26 August 2010.
[edit]
Further reading
• Banker, David "The 'Jewish Question' as a Focus of Conflict Between
Trends of Institutionalization and Radicalization in the Third Reich,
1934–1935" pages 357–371 from In Nation and History: Studies in the
History of the Jewish People; Based on the Papers Delivered at the
Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies, Volume 2 edited by Samuel
Ettinger, Jerusalem, 1984.
• Bankier, David "Nuremberg Laws" pages 1076–1077 from the
Encyclopedia of the Holocaust Volume 3 edited by Israel Gutman, New
York: Macmillan, 1990, ISBN 0-02-864527-8.
• Ehrenreich, Eric. The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial
Science, and the Final Solution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-253-34945-3
• Fest, Joachim C. (2002). Hitler. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
ISBN 0-15-602754-2.
• Fischer, Conan (2002). The Rise of the Nazis. Manchester University
Press. ISBN 0-7190-6067-2.
• Gruchmann, L. "'Blutschutzgestz' und Justiz: Zur Entstehung und
Auswirkung des Nürnberger Gesetzes von 15 September 1935" pages 418–
442 from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Volume 31, 1983.
• Kershaw, Ian (1999). Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-04671-0.
• Kulka, Otto Dov "Die Nürnberger Rassengesetze und die deutsche
Bevölkerugn um Lichte geheimer NS-Lage und Stimmungsberichte" pages
582–624 from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Volume 32, 1984.
• Margaliot, A. "The Reaction of the Jewish Public in Germany to the
Nuremberg Laws" pages 193–229 from Vad Yashem Studies, Volume 12,
1977.
• Mommsen, Hans "The Realization of the Unthinkable: The "Final
Solution of the Jewish Question" in the Third Reich" pages 217–264
from The Nazi Holocaust Part 3 The "Final Solution": The
Implementation of Mass Murder Volume 1 edited by Michael Marrus,
Westpoint: Meckler, 1989, ISBN 0-88736-266-4.
• Schleunes, Karl The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy towards
German Jews, 1933–1939, Urbana, Ill, 1970.
• Shirer, William L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
New York: Simon & Shuster.
• Toland, John (1976). Adolf Hitler. New York: Doubleday & Company.
ISBN 0-385-03724-4.
[edit]
External links
• Rise of the Nazis and Beginning of Persecution on the Yad Vashem
website
• The Citizenship Law, together with Supplementary Decree of 14
November 1935
• The Citizenship Law, English translation at the University of the
West of England
• The Blood Law, English translation at the University of the West of
England
• Race Laws (Nazi and other)
• Info from Holocaust Museum
• Nazi Race Laws to 1939
• Images of a 1938 German "J" Jewish passport from www.passportland.com

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 27, 2:30 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:

texas is a red state, and like all red states, its rule of law is
simply extremism.

[clairbear]

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in news:95bdb158-702e-453e-
bd7f-a48...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

> read up on the Nuremberg Laws.

the rest of the argumentum ad Hitlerum ridiculous post deleted

Here we go again another Godwin law post You really are a boob if you are
trying to equate Truancy laws to Nazi Germany You response is totally lame
and feckless. I call you stupid but that would offend stupid people
everywhere

[clairbear]

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in news:19aa3478-ccb1-407b-
9720-3ec...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

TRUANCY LAWS extreme 24 hours in jail after failing to follow a court order
not to skip school You rather silly Guess you have not seen the crap in
the Obamacare bill

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 27, 5:13 pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in news:95bdb158-702e-453e-
> bd7f-a48b24861...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

>
> > read up on the Nuremberg Laws.
>
> the rest of the argumentum ad Hitlerum ridiculous post deleted
>
> Here we go again another Godwin law post You really are a boob if you are
> trying to equate Truancy laws to Nazi Germany You response is totally lame
> and feckless. I call you stupid but that would offend stupid people
> everywhere

if the mustache fits. what that judge did is a perfect example of
evolving conservative extremism. the Nuremberg Laws started out vague
and small, and evolved into wholesale murder.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 26, 11:36 pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
> Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:0ga3s7pd6lrh782nergsansrh7ordmf6hb@

> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:27:55 -0500, clairbear
> > <clairb...@sidsatwit.com> wrote:
>
> >>The law is the law' you silly twit.
>
> > So were miscegenation laws
>
> Anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme
> Court of the United States> and the myriad of present laws passed to suppress women's rights
>
> What laws suppress womens rights? There are none!> Just because they are "laws"---don't make them right.
>
> Like I said if you had any skill for comprehesion if the laws is not just
> the it should be ruled unconstitutional just like the mandates  in
> Obamacare
>

mandates are not unconstitutional.

> So you are syaing YOU against education Truancy is a problem in many school
> and laws have be enacted to lower truancy levels. That is what the thread
> is about, simpleton

the student was the victim of conservative extremism.

[clairbear]

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in

news:a2611e58-838e-4976...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

Thank you for proving my point about you lack of intelligence
Go ahed keep up the Nazi fallacy and show us how really dumb you are

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 27, 5:27 pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:

if you read them, you will see.

[clairbear]

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in

news:0a80ed5a-ab58-44da...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:

> On May 26, 11:36�pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:0ga3s7pd6lrh782nergsansrh7ordmf6hb@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Sat, 26 May 2012 22:27:55 -0500, clairbear
>> > <clairb...@sidsatwit.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>The law is the law' you silly twit.
>>
>> > So were miscegenation laws
>>
>> Anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the
>> Supreme Court of the United States> and the myriad of present laws
>> passed to supp
> ress women's rights
>>
>> What laws suppress womens rights? There are none!> Just because they
>> are
> "laws"---don't make them right.
>>
>> Like I said if you had any skill for comprehesion if the laws is not
>> just the it should be ruled unconstitutional just like the mandates
>> �in Obamacare
>>
>
>
> mandates are not unconstitutional.

Forcing some one to buy governmant madates insurance will be found
unconstitutional unless the sumpreme court looses all their senses
Forcing religious organzation to provide coverage for procedures and
drugs that go against their beliefs is a violation of the First
Amendment

>> So you are syaing YOU against education Truancy is a problem in many
>> school
>> and laws have be enacted to lower truancy levels. That is what the
>> thread is about, simpleton
>
> the student was the victim of conservative extremism.

That Is a lie from another lying left wing loon

[clairbear]

Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> wrote in

news:b924b7e9-8bf8-48f9...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:

> On May 27, 5:27�pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote

>> innews:a2611e58-838e-4976-aa
> da-ddd4...@3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 27, 5:13�pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote in
>> >> news:95bdb158-702e-453e-
>> >> bd7f-a48b24861...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > read up on the Nuremberg Laws.
>>
>> >> the rest of the argumentum ad Hitlerum ridiculous post deleted
>>
>> >> Here we go again another Godwin law post You really are a boob if
>> >> you are trying to equate Truancy laws to Nazi Germany You response
>> >> is totally lam
>> > e
>> >> and feckless. I call you stupid but that would offend stupid
>> >> people everywhere
>>
>> > �if the mustache fits. what that judge did is a perfect example of
>> > evolving conservative extremism. the Nuremberg Laws started out
>> > vague and small, and evolved into wholesale murder.
>>
>> Thank you for proving my point about you lack of intelligence
>> Go ahed keep up the Nazi fallacy and show us how really dumb you are
>
> if you read them, you will see.
>

Non need to read something that germane to the subject of school
truancy. Or what also appears to be contempt of court by continuing
truancy after being told not to be truant again by the court. In most
placece an overnight stay in jail for contempt is mild

[Gary Forbis]

On May 27, 2:15 pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
> emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote innews:bj35s7p9o4rlss5ub...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:55:50 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:14:49 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

Rachael Maddow has reported that while vaginal probes are
not explicitly mandated they are the only ultrasound sufficiently
accurate to meet the mandated requirements.

It's a bit like a law saying one could select any test for Blood
Alcholol
Content one want as long as it was within an accuracy only achievable
with a blood draw.

[clairbear]

Gary Forbis <forbi...@msn.com> wrote in
news:b15d9d5c-47d7-4f5e...@b5g2000pbm.googlegroups.com:

> On May 27, 2:15 pm, clairbear <clairb...@msn.com> wrote:
>> emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote

>> innews:bj35s7p9o4rlss5ubpjprl7agafg
> mhe...@4ax.com:

Ooh Rachel Maddow now there a credile source.... NOT She makes Hannity
look like a moderate

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Maddow is hoping to get probed, it'll be as close to real sex as she may
ever get.








--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

-Kum bay ya-

[clairbear]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:bhe5s79o8amkml5escd1v5qhqnm3djmh2s@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:15:21 -0500, clairbear <clai...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Apparently yoorgloon has personal experience with the device
>

> Yes---from you liking to use it rectally.
>
YOU REALLY ARE A PATHETIC LOON Give your family our condolences as they
have to see you We don't Thank God

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:34:55 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:40:13 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>It's called a "vaginal ultrasound probe" you moron
>>
>> You need to update your information, invasive
>>procedures will not stand in court.
>

>The legislation was proposed, and only barely defeated
>
>Why in fuck would you defend anyone proposing something like that.

What makes you think I defend it, the only
reason the invasive procedure was considered
is because makes the beating heart visible
better at an earlier time.

I do see the abortion itself as many times
worse than any ultrasound.



>http://www.care2.com/causes/discomfort-is-the-point-of-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill-sponsor-says.html#ixzz1w7G7YpOw
>
>When Alabama Republican Clay Scofield introduced a mandatory
>ultrasound proposal for women seeking abortions, he stated that he
>assumed most of the ultrasounds would be abdominal, since they could
>be used at six weeks or earlier. His obvious misinformation was an
>attempt to shield himself from the accusation that he wanted to force
>all women seeking abortions to be manually probed in the process.
>
>Now, he’s is much less concerned about appearing concerned about the
>feelings, both physically and emotionally, of the women involved. As
>the debate over the transvaginal ultrasound proposal continues,
>Scofield says it’s good for women to feel some discomfort if they are
>trying to terminate a pregnancy. WAAYTV reporter Rebecca Shlien
>writes, “[Bill opponent on Scofield constituent Tristin] Basinger says
>this invasive ultrasound would be a physical and emotional discomfort:
>‘I think they should see what they’re getting rid of, but I don’t
>think they should go through the whole humiliation. Because I feel
>like they’re already humiliated enough as it is.’ But Scofield, the
>bill’s sponsor, feels that discomfort is the point, and this clearer
>sonogram would help women second guess the decision to end their
>pregnancy.”
>
>She should be required to “second guess” herself, and be forced to
>feel discomfort? How can these bills be seen as anything but a state
>sanctioned rite to punish women for not carrying an unwanted pregnancy
>to term? No wonder Scofield, no doubt feeling backlash over his
>comments, has now said the type of ultrasound should be a woman’s
>choice. “I want to offer legislation that will simultaneously protect
>life and show respect and compassion towards women,” Scofield now
>says.
>
>How nice. He respects a woman’s right to chose — her mandatory
>ultrasound type.

Look, abortions would never have been legal
if a woman would not have lied about being raped.

States other than Virginia are considering
some type of pre-abortion viewing process
along with a short waiting period.

There are people that want everybody to
see just how horrible the tearing apart of
a defenseless baby is, even without any
religious or conscience issues.

Better a woman knows before being
subjected to the horrors, it might avoid
her having regrets because of not knowing.


I don't know anybody that ever had an
abortion, but I did know single girls that
had babies and they love them, and have
no regrets keeping them.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 27, 8:29 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:34:55 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:40:13 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>>It's called a "vaginal ultrasound probe" you moron
>
> >>        You need to update your information, invasive
> >>procedures will not stand in court.
>
> >The legislation was proposed, and only barely defeated
>
> >Why in fuck would you defend anyone proposing something like that.
>
>         What makes you think I defend it, the only
> reason the invasive procedure was considered
> is because makes the beating heart visible
> better at an earlier time.
>
>        I do see the abortion itself as many times
> worse than any ultrasound.
>
>
>

> >http://www.care2.com/causes/discomfort-is-the-point-of-transvaginal-u...

as you can see abortion was legal for thousands of years all over the
world. it was the rise of conservatism during the robber baron era
that set america down the road of mandating abortions illegal. most
undoubtedly funded by the robber barons and other conservative
business interests.




http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html

In the United States, the history of abortion goes back much farther
than the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which made abortion
legal and marked an important turning point in public health policy.
Abortion Was Legal
Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every
society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from
the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution
was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and
commonly performed.
Making Abortion Illegal
In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing
laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion
laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears
that the population would be dominated by the children of newly
arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of
"native" Anglo-Saxon women.
Medical Practice
During the 1800s, all surgical procedures, including
abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics
were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive
medical educations. Without today's current technology, maternal and
infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high.
The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other
surgeries that were not outlawed.
As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and
technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the
whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast
majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them
from illegal practitioners without these medical advances at their
disposal. The "back alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly
procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved
dramatically.
The Medical Establishment
The strongest force behind the drive to
criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for
themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to
prevent "untrained" practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries,
and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient
fees.
The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the
principle procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather
than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American
Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and
dangerous. By 1910 all but one state had criminalized abortion except
where necessary, in a doctor's judgment, to save the woman's life. In
this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a
"physicians-only" practice.
Back-Alley Abortions
The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s
until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that
prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and
services.
Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who
sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of
illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although
accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s
and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal
abortion.
Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting
to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who
performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary
conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated
thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects
of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.
Some women were able to obtain relatively safer, although still
illegal, abortions from private doctors. This practice remained
prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. The rate of
reported abortions then began to decline, partly because doctors faced
increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators
concerned about the legality of their operations.


Liberalization of Abortion Laws
Between 1967 and 1973 one-third of the states liberalized or repealed
their criminal abortion laws. However, the right to have an abortion
in all states was only made available to American women in 1973 when
the Supreme Court struck down the remaining restrictive state laws
with its ruling in Roe v. Wade.


Roe v. Wade
The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made it possible for
women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical
practitioners. This led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related
injury and death.
The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion
except to save a woman's life. At that time, most other states had
laws similar to the one in Texas. Those laws forced large numbers of
women to resort to illegal abortions.
Jane Roe, a 21-year-old pregnant woman, represented all women who
wanted abortions but could not get them legally and safely. Henry Wade
was the Texas Attorney General who defended the law that made
abortions illegal.
After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans' right
to privacy included the right of a woman to decide whether to have
children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that
decision without state interference.


After Roe v. Wade
The reaction to Roe was swift. Supporters of legal abortion rejoiced
and generally felt their battle was won. However, others faulted the
Court for the decision. Those opposed to legal abortion immediately
began working to prevent any federal or state funding for abortion and
to undermine or limit the effect of the decision.
Some turned to measures directly aimed at disrupting clinics where
abortions were being provided. Their tactics have included
demonstrating in front of abortion clinics, harassing people trying to
enter, vandalizing clinic property, and blocking access to clinics.
As time passed, the level of anti-abortion violence escalated.
Increasingly, clinic bombings, physical attacks, and even murders
endanger abortion providers and create a hostile environment for women
seeking abortions.


Retreat from Roe v. Wade
Initially, the framework of Roe v. Wade was the basis by which the
constitutionality of state abortion laws was determined. In recent
years, however, the Supreme Court has begun to allow more restrictions
on abortion.
For instance, the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v.
Casey in 1992 established that states can restrict pre-viability
abortions. Restrictions can be placed on first trimester abortions in
ways that are not medically necessary, as long as the restrictions do
not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion services.
Many states now have restrictions in place such as parental
involvement, mandatory waiting periods, and biased counseling. Only
the requirement that a woman involve her spouse in her decision was
disallowed.


A Timeline of Reproductive Rights
1821: Connecticut passes the first law in the United States barring
abortions after "quickening."
1860: Twenty states have laws limiting abortion.
1965: Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision strikes down a
state law that prohibited giving married people information,
instruction, or medical advice on contraception.
1967: Colorado is the first state to liberalize its abortion laws.
1970: Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington liberalize abortion
laws, making abortion available at the request of a woman and her
doctor.
1972: Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right
of unmarried people to use contraceptives.
1973: Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision strikes down state laws that
made abortion illegal.
1976: Congress adopts the first Hyde Amendment barring the use of
federal Medicaid funds to provide abortions to low-income women.
1977: A revised Hyde Amendment is passed allowing states to deny
Medicaid funding except in cases of rape, incest, or "severe and long-
lasting" damage to the woman's physical health.
1991: Rust v. Sullivan upholds the constitutionality of the 1988 "gag
rule" which prohibits doctors and counselors at clinics which receive
federal funding from providing their patients with information about
and referrals for abortion.
1992: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
reaffirms the "core" holdings of Roe that women have a right to
abortion before fetal viability, but allows states to restrict
abortion access so long as these restrictions do not impose an "undue
burden" on women seeking abortions.
1994: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is passed by
Congress with a large majority in response to the murder of Dr. David
Gunn. The FACE Act forbids the use of "force, threat of force or
physical obstruction" to prevent someone from providing or receiving
reproductive health services. The law also provides for both criminal
and civil penalties for those who break the law.
2000: Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I) rules that the Nebraska statute
banning so-called "partial-birth abortion" is unconstitutional for two
independent reasons: the statute lacks the necessary exception for
preserving the health of the woman, and the definition of the targeted
procedures is so broad as to prohibit abortions in the second
trimester, thereby being an "undue burden" on women. This effectively
invalidates 29 of 31 similar statewide bans.
2000: Food and Drug Administration approves mifepristone (RU-486) as
an option in abortion care for very early pregnancy.
2003: A federal ban on abortion procedures is passed by Congress and
signed into law by President Bush. The National Abortion Federation
immediately challenges the law in court and is successful in blocking
enforcement of the law for its members.
2004: NAF wins lawsuit against federal abortion ban. Justice
Department appeals rulings by three trial courts against ban.

References
1. Tietze C, Henshaw SK. Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1986. New
York: The Guttmacher Institute, 1986

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:17:39 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2012 21:29:30 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:34:55 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:40:13 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>It's called a "vaginal ultrasound probe" you moron
>>>>
>>>> You need to update your information, invasive
>>>>procedures will not stand in court.
>>>
>>>The legislation was proposed, and only barely defeated
>>>
>>>Why in fuck would you defend anyone proposing something like that.
>>
>> What makes you think I defend it, the only
>>reason the invasive procedure was considered
>>is because makes the beating heart visible
>>better at an earlier time.
>

>Why is that relevant to a constitutional RIGHT?

Frankly I was astonished to learn that any
legislative body would consider it, maybe they
feel if the woman is asking for surgical instruments
to be inserted even further, it is reasonable,
but don't ask me, ask the jerks talking about it.

>> I do see the abortion itself as many times
>>worse than any ultrasound.
>

>For who? A fetus isn't a citizen. A fetus has all rights a woman
>carrying it has. A fetus cannot have "rights"--it is not a citizen.

You don't seem to understand the procedure,
they don't just cut the fetus out, they injure it
enough that it dies in place and the woman's
body experiences trauma while it is being
expelled.

If you care as much for the woman's life
and health as you seem to care for the right
to end a pregnancy;

http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/

A horrifying statistic.

>>>How nice. He respects a woman’s right to chose — her mandatory
>>>ultrasound type.
>>
>> Look, abortions would never have been legal
>>if a woman would not have lied about being raped.
>

>That's nonsense. The issue is a entire political group is forcing a
>set of religious beliefs on those who have a constitutional right to
>chose medical procedures, or MEDICINE that they deem necessary for
>THEIR lives.

Nobody, men or women can get any medicine
they want. Good health is separate from religion,
there is a blood bank shortage because of abortions,
how can you blow it off as like having a tooth pulled.


>The REpublican party has a fundamental tenet off "less
>government"---it touts it day after day. Yet the disparity between
>what they SAY they believe, and what they actually do is so blatantly
>hypocritical it's sickening

You may think only republicans are against
legal abortions, but you are wrong, there are
many different thoughts, and a number of
different ideas about when and why it should
be ok.


>Women are equal citizens. The Republican party is making laws that
>take away rights given by the constitution---using religion as a
>reason.

I think the great majority of opponents of
legal abortions are more concerned with the
number of deaths and the later health and
mental problems and suicides.
I would be very surprised if half of all
democrats who are not atheist animals
care about what happens later.

>> States other than Virginia are considering
>>some type of pre-abortion viewing process
>>along with a short waiting period.
>

>Why?

To let women know what all aspects of
the procedure involve.
If they know ahead of time what the
procedure does, they might not want to
take the chance.

>> There are people that want everybody to
>>see just how horrible the tearing apart of
>>a defenseless baby is, even without any
>>religious or conscience issues.
>

>It's NOT a "baby"
>
>It's a FETUS.

It could be a baby, a sweet, fragile,
gift that people want, and love.

>> Better a woman knows before being
>>subjected to the horrors, it might avoid
>>her having regrets because of not knowing.
>

>Why? If her RIGHT is guaranteed by the constitution, why are men
>taking that RIGHT away?

So let women decide.

>> I don't know anybody that ever had an
>>abortion,
>

>American has.
>
>It's called the Republican party after the 1960's.

So your issue is political and not human
health and welfare?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 08:51:43 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Mon, 28 May 2012 02:07:37 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>> What makes you think I defend it, the only
>>>>reason the invasive procedure was considered
>>>>is because makes the beating heart visible
>>>>better at an earlier time.
>>>
>>>Why is that relevant to a constitutional RIGHT?
>>
>> Frankly I was astonished to learn that any
>>legislative body would consider it, maybe they
>>feel if the woman is asking for surgical instruments
>>to be inserted even further, it is reasonable,
>>but don't ask me, ask the jerks talking about it.
>

>It's relevant because YOU support and defend what that idiot
>Republican party has become, Joe loon.

So your whole object is trying to destroy the
only major political opposition to socialist takeover?

>>>> I do see the abortion itself as many times
>>>>worse than any ultrasound.
>>>
>>>For who? A fetus isn't a citizen. A fetus has all rights a woman
>>>carrying it has. A fetus cannot have "rights"--it is not a citizen.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the procedure,
>

>Of course everyone does. That has nothing to do with the
>constitutional right of a citizen to control their person.

The medical profession and all authorities
do everything possible to prevent people from
injuring themselves.

>> If you care as much for the woman's life
>>and health as you seem to care for the right
>>to end a pregnancy;
>

>> A horrifying statistic.
>
>It's called "emotional appeal" on a massive propaganda scale, JoeLoon.
>It's the stuff that makes conservatives weep and cry, moan and subvert
>constitutional principles.

You saw fit to delete the url that shows the
harm to women that make the mistake of having
an abortion.

Read it and try to deny that any part of it is
false;

http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/


>THis nation cannot survive if any group gets to enact laws based on
>religious or emotional beliefs.

Abortion is so horrible human beings don't
like to talk about it.

>>>> Look, abortions would never have been legal
>>>>if a woman would not have lied about being raped.
>>>
>>>That's nonsense. The issue is a entire political group is forcing a
>>>set of religious beliefs on those who have a constitutional right to
>>>chose medical procedures, or MEDICINE that they deem necessary for
>>>THEIR lives.
>>
>> Nobody, men or women can get any medicine
>>they want. Good health is separate from religion,
>>there is a blood bank shortage because of abortions,
>>how can you blow it off as like having a tooth pulled.
>

>Not true. One group of people, acting in the same capacity as others,
>want special consideration to be exempt from laws that others must
>follow. Because of religion. They either need to obey the law--or
>get out of a position where religion forms the basis of their
>policies.

What group want to be exempt from laws?


>Further, it's the POLITICIANS who are voting THEIR beliefs over the
>objections and wishes of the people they represent. A majority being
>represented do not side with the present policies---yet the officials
>ignore them

How do you know what the majority of the
public want, but we will find out in November.

>>>The REpublican party has a fundamental tenet off "less
>>>government"---it touts it day after day. Yet the disparity between
>>>what they SAY they believe, and what they actually do is so blatantly
>>>hypocritical it's sickening
>>
>> You may think only republicans are against
>>legal abortions,
>

>WRONG. Republicans are the embodiment of the Conservative portion of
>the AMerican electorate---and use social issues as a wedge to create a
>false belief in moral superiority.

In morals there is no superiority, all perceived
moral, or rather immoral acts are, and have always
been, the same, never changing.


>The American public, generally, do NOT agree with conservatives views
>on birth control, womens rights.

Then they should do what, vote for those
that share your views?

>>>Women are equal citizens. The Republican party is making laws that
>>>take away rights given by the constitution---using religion as a
>>>reason.
>>
>> I think the great majority of opponents of
>>legal abortions are more concerned with the
>>number of deaths and the later health and
>>mental problems and suicides.
>

>That's abosolute propaganda nonsense

Point out what is not true;


http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/

Even women that care too much for their
body to have an abortion have mental problems
if they give the baby up for adoption.

>> I would be very surprised if half of all
>>democrats who are not atheist animals
>>care about what happens later.
>

>Even that issue is opposed by republicans who are defunding ALL
>systems which deal with the poor, women's issues, homelessness,
>education,

If the present levels of deficits continue there
will be a lot of forced defunding caused by not
being able to get the money to continue all
the give aways.

>>>> States other than Virginia are considering
>>>>some type of pre-abortion viewing process
>>>>along with a short waiting period.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> To let women know what all aspects of
>>the procedure involve.
>

>You're being stupid, right? Terminating a pregnacy isn't brain
>surgery, JoeLoon.

No, but it is a procedure that in most cases
makes the woman's body so sick or injured
that the fetus is rejected.

>>>> There are people that want everybody to
>>>>see just how horrible the tearing apart of
>>>>a defenseless baby is, even without any
>>>>religious or conscience issues.
>>>
>>>It's NOT a "baby"
>>>
>>>It's a FETUS.
>>
>> It could be a baby, a sweet, fragile,
>>gift that people want, and love.
>

>Moronic emotional propaganda.

Well, yeah, sorry to hear you leftist liberal
socialists have no emotions other than the
bitterness and hostility you all exhibit.

>>>> Better a woman knows before being
>>>>subjected to the horrors, it might avoid
>>>>her having regrets because of not knowing.
>>>
>>>Why? If her RIGHT is guaranteed by the constitution, why are men
>>>taking that RIGHT away?
>>
>> So let women decide.
>

>Republicans are making laws that remove that right

And socialists are passing laws that help
people commit suicide, isn't that great, very
commendable, name all the immoral and
harmful and hateful laws you want passed.

>>>> I don't know anybody that ever had an
>>>>abortion,
>>>
>>>American has.
>>>
>>>It's called the Republican party after the 1960's.
>>
>> So your issue is political and not human
>>health and welfare?
>

>Insofar as the political direction of the republican
>party/conservatives is to deny constitutional rights of women.

How about a poll of democrats who do not
have political ambition and who are not atheists.


I really don't care what you all do, but I
don't have to like it, I just wish there was not
so much violence on the news like 24 people
being shot in Chicago in one day, is that some
kind of cull the left has going?

[Bible Studies with Al Sharpton]

Obozo Is Willing To Do Anything To Get Re-Elected, Even Start A Third
World War
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Sunday indirectly confirmed
recent remarks by the Ambassador to Israel that the U.S. is “ready
from a military perspective’’ to stop Iran from making a nuclear
weapon if international pressure fails.
“We have plans to be able to implement any contingency we have to in
order to defend ourselves,’’ Panetta said on ABC’s This Week. Earlier,
Panetta said, “The fundamental premise is that neither the United
States or the international community is going to allow Iran to
develop a nuclear weapon.’’
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/panetta-u-s-is-ready-to-stop-iran-from-creating-nuclear-weapons-20120527
-----
Absolutely Disgusting

On May 26, 3:56 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Judge sends honor student to jail for missing school
>
> By David Ferguson
>
> Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:30 EDT
>
> A Houston-area teenager has been jailed and fined for missing school by a
> judge who hopes to make an example of her. 17-year-old Diane Tran is working
> two jobs while taking advanced placement and dual credit courses at Willis
> High School in Willis, Texas. Some mornings, she is simply too exhausted to
> make it to school on time. Some days she misses classes altogether.
>
> She was warned by Judge Lanny Moriarty in April not to miss any more school.
> When she missed school again last week, he sentenced her to 24 hours behind
> bars and a $100 fine.
>
> "If you let one of 'em run loose, what are you gon' do with the rest of 'em,
> let them go too?" the judge offered as justification.
>
> A reporter from Houston's KHOU relayed to the judge that Tran is working to
> support an older brother who attends Texas A&M University and a younger
> sister. Her parents divorced "out of the blue" last year and both moved
> away, her mother to Georgia, leaving the high schooler on her own in Willis.
> She is working part time at a wedding venue and full time at a dry cleaning
> business just to stay afloat.
>
> When confronted with the facts in the case, Judge Moriarty admitted to KHOU
> that he could perhaps have been more lenient, but that the hadn't given any
> thought to reversing the sentence.
>
> --
> Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
> solution and its always wrong!"

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 14:04:34 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:38:38 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>>
>>>> Frankly I was astonished to learn that any
>>>>legislative body would consider it, maybe they
>>>>feel if the woman is asking for surgical instruments
>>>>to be inserted even further, it is reasonable,
>>>>but don't ask me, ask the jerks talking about it.
>>>
>>>It's relevant because YOU support and defend what that idiot
>>>Republican party has become, Joe loon.
>>
>> So your whole object is trying to destroy the
>>only major political opposition to socialist takeover?
>

>There is no such thing

BS, there have been organization of a number
of socialist groups, including communist which I
call world socialists.
In the 1950s there was a group that rented
a store front for meetings trying to recruit members,
I stopped in for one or two of the meetings and
the dialogue was so anti-American I called the
local police anti-subservive division and they
came to talk to me twice.

The leader talked about all that would be
needed is one or two percent of the population
as members with weapons, and they could take
over while the rest of the population stayed in
their homes.
A different policeman told me they were
watching me from the roof across the street,
sounding like he didn't like me calling the
police about the kind of talk going on.
I don't know if it was related but a month
later a bullet came through my front door,
hit a rung in the stair railing, and bounced
off a wall and fell in the floor.
I was holding my infant son and if the
bullet would not have hit the railing, it
was headed straight for me.

I layed the baby down and crawled
around to the kitchen to look out while
my wife called the police.
There was this plainclothesman
holding his gun, and I went out when
the police car got there, and the guy
with the gun said he was trying to
break up a fight of two teenagers.


>The entire premise you begin with does not exist. It makes you look
>(more) stupid when you do idiotic shit like that.

Talk about stupid, if you can't find all the
web sites of the communists and socialists,
there are enough of them, way too many,
but thankfully they don't get many followers.

>>>>>For who? A fetus isn't a citizen. A fetus has all rights a woman
>>>>>carrying it has. A fetus cannot have "rights"--it is not a citizen.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand the procedure,
>>>
>>>Of course everyone does. That has nothing to do with the
>>>constitutional right of a citizen to control their person.
>>
>> The medical profession and all authorities
>>do everything possible to prevent people from
>>injuring themselves.
>

>Not against their will.

What happens when a person tries to commit
suicide, they are held for mental evaluation and
measures are taken to keep them from hurting
themselves.


>Besides, that silly crap don't fly. Safe, legal abortion removed the
>injury and death that was inherent before Roe v Wade.

Sure, claim there is no danger or harm,
abortion clinics do not do followups for
infection or other complications, and
women do not advertise the fact they
had an abortion.

Thankfully there is not the number of
deaths as before, but that doesn't make
it a great accomplishment.

>>>It's called "emotional appeal" on a massive propaganda scale, JoeLoon.
>>>It's the stuff that makes conservatives weep and cry, moan and subvert
>>>constitutional principles.
>>
>> You saw fit to delete the url that shows the
>>harm to women that make the mistake of having
>>an abortion.
>

>Because it's propaganda.

So you censored me again, that shows how
you think, you don't think readers can decide
for themselves, you are a socialist control freak
posing as a caring individual.

>>>THis nation cannot survive if any group gets to enact laws based on
>>>religious or emotional beliefs.
>>
>> Abortion is so horrible human beings don't
>>like to talk about it.
>

>No---Wingers don't "like to talk about it" because "Emotional appeal"
>fallacy argument is designed to elicit that kind of reaction.

The lifestyles that result in abortion have
always been frowned on because they also
spread disease, cause violence, and destroy
lives.

>>>Not true. One group of people, acting in the same capacity as others,
>>>want special consideration to be exempt from laws that others must
>>>follow. Because of religion. They either need to obey the law--or
>>>get out of a position where religion forms the basis of their
>>>policies.
>>
>> What group want to be exempt from laws?
>>
>

>Wingers, conservatives and religious nuts who operate businesses that
>don't want to obey laws that all who operate public businesses must
>do.

You will not be able to stomp out religion,
give it up, I haven't been to church for 68 years,
but people have a right to go where they please,
this is not East Berlin in 1948.


>Laws can't force a PRIVATE business by regulation. This is an issue
>of a religious belief in a public venue. (hiring employees and subject
>to regulations related to such)

I see no need for regulations of any kind,
tax forms and instructions are online, and
it is not any business of the federal government
what most small businesses do.

>>>Further, it's the POLITICIANS who are voting THEIR beliefs over the
>>>objections and wishes of the people they represent. A majority being
>>>represented do not side with the present policies---yet the officials
>>>ignore them
>>
>> How do you know what the majority of the
>>public want, but we will find out in November.
>

>There is ample statistical sampling of "what the people want"

Polls don't count, elections do.

>>>Republicans are the embodiment of the Conservative portion of
>>>the AMerican electorate---and use social issues as a wedge to create a
>>>false belief in moral superiority.
>>
>> In morals there is no superiority, all perceived
>>moral, or rather immoral acts are, and have always
>>been, the same, never changing.
>

>Bullshit. The "principles" that wingers have SAID they embody---are
>only applicable IF they support the direction and issue they are
>engaged in.
>
>For example: "Lying"

About what?


>Raygun LIED his ass off about selling arms to our enemies, his gun
>running, and PERJURY associated with his testimony in Iran-Contra.

You don't know that he was aware of what
was going on, it is the job of some agencies to
keep communist governments off the American
continents, what went wrong may not ever be
public.


>Not one fucking conservative stood up and castigated him for lying and
>commiting perjury. Moreover, the Raygun administration was "The Most
>Criminal" in our history. No republican ever stood up and held him to
>account.

I wasn't aware he testified, I was having
problems of my own.

>>>The American public, generally, do NOT agree with conservatives views
>>>on birth control, womens rights.
>>
>> Then they should do what, vote for those
>>that share your views?
>

>The american electorate has to stop being as uneducated and stupid as
>you are.

And you are going to educate them even
if it kills them.

>>>>>Women are equal citizens. The Republican party is making laws that
>>>>>take away rights given by the constitution---using religion as a
>>>>>reason.
>>>>
>>>> I think the great majority of opponents of
>>>>legal abortions are more concerned with the
>>>>number of deaths and the later health and
>>>>mental problems and suicides.
>>>
>>>That's abosolute propaganda nonsense
>>
>> Point out what is not true;
>

>The issue is the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a Citizen's RIGHT to make that
>decision for herself----without Government and religion preventing it.

One death is one too many.

>> I really don't care what you all do, but I
>>don't have to like it, I just wish there was not
>>so much violence on the news like 24 people
>>being shot in Chicago in one day, is that some
>>kind of cull the left has going?
>

>No more than the usual faux snooze demonizing blacks, or the deaths
>that gunloons advocate by supporting MORE WMD, or the violence in
>areas set up and abandoned by white power and wealth, JoeLoon.

Let me know the color of the skin of those
involved in the 24 Chicago shootings.

Why does the violence continue, do you
think more laws will stop it?

I have spine problems and nerve damage
from long term diabetes that makes hearing of
or seeing violence very uncomfortable for me.


You should try to look at the bright side
more, isn't the president doing all the things
you think he should?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:47:41 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:10:09 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:

>
>>>There is no such thing
>>
>> BS, there have been organization of a number
>>of socialist groups, including communist which I
>>call world socialists.
>

>They're are moonies, fundies, moonlanding conspiracists, birthers and
>every manner of wing nuts around
>
>Most aren't ignorant as you trying to sell that canard, Joeloon
>
>You can't even define "socialism" and find a way to apply it here.
>
>IDIOT

You are just trying to get me to advertise
for your ideals by posting a few dozen commie
and socialist websites that call themselves
socialists.

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:31 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:35:57 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

>Nope, I'm trying to get YOU do use your (silly) definition of
>"socialism" and tell us what policy, law, or application of it is what
>you claim it is.

The SCOTUS decision will show that shortly.