Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Nah. She looks like she's in her 30s, in good health and wearing makeup.
[+]
Damn it I liked her more when I thought she was 15 !
I forgot to add the 3 ! I was never good at math.
Boehner challenges Senate Democrats to 'get off their ***'
Look. More politicians twisting facts.
If the GOP really wanted to fund Homeland Security, they'd remove the immigration language and treat it as a seperate issue.
"Riders" and their ilk shouldn't be allowed. "Packaging" laws and regulations with other bills has always been so stupid. Vote on each issue on it's own. Don't tie one thing to something entirely unrelated to try to slide it through. -.-;
Look. More politicians twisting facts.
If the GOP really wanted to fund Homeland Security, they'd remove the immigration language and treat it as a seperate issue.
"Riders" and their ilk shouldn't be allowed. "Packaging" laws and regulations with other bills has always been so stupid. Vote on each issue on it's own. Don't tie one thing to something entirely unrelated to try to slide it through. -.-;
[+]
It's not unrelated though.
fonewear said: »
See she looks like she is 15 lol
15 in what? Jet years?
[+]
She is apparently 29, and has been playing golf since she was 8.
...which means that she has been ignorant of the most basic rule of golf for 21 years.
Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden!
Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden!
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
It's not unrelated though.
*sigh*
Immigration policy should not be linked to the overseeing department's funding. Address policy seperately.
Fenrir.Atheryn said: »
She is apparently 29, and has been playing golf since she was 8.
In that case she actually looks a little older than she is to me.
But again, that's makeup for you. Wear too much and you look like you're hiding something!
Could also been too much time in the sun/tanning booth since she plays an outdoor sport.
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
It's not unrelated though.
*sigh*
Immigration policy should not be linked to the overseeing department's funding. Address policy seperately.
Dodd-Frank Act rings a bell?
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
Ramyrez said: »
Asura.Kingnobody said: »
It's not unrelated though.
*sigh*
Immigration policy should not be linked to the overseeing department's funding. Address policy seperately.
Dodd-Frank Act rings a bell?
Ramyrez said: »
Look. More politicians twisting facts.
GoP this time. Mainly Boehner being vocal about it trying to save his stupid tanning booth face. Dems do it all the time too though. It's *** stupid.
The only thing the GOP can do to override Obama's legal executive order on immigration is pass bipartisan immigration reform. That is literally their only option. Coincidentally, its the best option.
[+]
unless you become more watchful you will find the most important powers of government will fall into the hands of corporations President Andrew Jackson
Well looks like we lost our most important powers when we got two political parties that usurped our constitutional rights and clearly most of you folks who support these two parties do not care. Well that's nice it's your right to not care.
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini said that.
Boy was both of these folks right because it's clear in the USA that corporations are more represented then the actual citizens of its nation. I know that sounds scary well you should be afraid being sold to a corporation under maritime law that operates under its own rules and not our constitutional laws. We must beat them at there own game. Either by two peaceful measures by ballot or article 5 of the constitution or by a call to arms.
rp&r page 213 Let Freedom Reign
rp&r page 216 The Law That Never Was the 16th amendment.
rp&r page 223 The Constitutional Republic known as the USA.
rp&r page 239 Taxation without representation.
rp&r page 248 Keeping Government Honest with Handcuffs ( made in the US of course.)
rp&r page 260 Honest Debate questions
Well looks like we lost our most important powers when we got two political parties that usurped our constitutional rights and clearly most of you folks who support these two parties do not care. Well that's nice it's your right to not care.
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini said that.
Boy was both of these folks right because it's clear in the USA that corporations are more represented then the actual citizens of its nation. I know that sounds scary well you should be afraid being sold to a corporation under maritime law that operates under its own rules and not our constitutional laws. We must beat them at there own game. Either by two peaceful measures by ballot or article 5 of the constitution or by a call to arms.
rp&r page 213 Let Freedom Reign
rp&r page 216 The Law That Never Was the 16th amendment.
rp&r page 223 The Constitutional Republic known as the USA.
rp&r page 239 Taxation without representation.
rp&r page 248 Keeping Government Honest with Handcuffs ( made in the US of course.)
rp&r page 260 Honest Debate questions
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
We must beat them at there own game.
I would love to hear your strategic plans.
[+]
Quote:
On Wednesday, the New York Times reached deep in its own archives — back to November 21, 1922, and dredged up the first article it ever published about Adolf Hitler. It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded."
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
Lakshmi.Aelius said: »
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
We must beat them at there own game.
I would love to hear your strategic plans.
Either by two peaceful measures by ballot or article 5 of the constitution or by a call to arms. That's being honest and reasonable. Never give up or lose sight of a better America. I recognize what I am up against and I am not alone in that realization. Our constitutional republic can be restored by peaceful measures which I strongly recommend or by a call to arms granted by our 2nd amendment and our right to keep government honest and in the peoples best interests. As it stands today we are only entitled to our own thoughts and views of facts that current establishment let's us know through our educational systems they approve of. Freedom allows us to know the truth and does not cover up facts. We are mislead and we are waking up to a new dawn that shines brightly over a better America. God bless you all.
rp&r page 213 Let Freedom Reign
rp&r page 216 The Law That Never Was the 16th amendment.
rp&r page 223 The Constitutional Republic known as the USA.
rp&r page 239 Taxation without representation.
rp&r page 248 Keeping Government Honest with Handcuffs ( made in the US of course.)
rp&r page 260 Honest Debate questions
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Quote:
On Wednesday, the New York Times reached deep in its own archives — back to November 21, 1922, and dredged up the first article it ever published about Adolf Hitler. It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded."
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
To be fair to the original article's author and contemporaries, Mein Kampf wasn't even written until 1923, during Hitler's imprisonment following the Munich Putsch. Until then, arguably, a concrete treatise on his plan for the treatment of European Jews (or at least Jews resident in greater Germany) didn't exist. The dissemination of his specific ideas, as opposed to rhetoric and expressed in his book, would only follow later during his rise-to-power.
If the context of this modern article is in reference to the rising power of other modern ideologue groups (whichever group that is that happens to fit the author's perspective) then I suppose it is still a valid observation to say that the Times article didn't do well to predict the future. But again, to be fair, Hitler wasn't a major player in the party or had his ideas expressed in a popular manifesto at that point.
[+]
Fenrir.Schutz said: »
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Quote:
On Wednesday, the New York Times reached deep in its own archives — back to November 21, 1922, and dredged up the first article it ever published about Adolf Hitler. It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded."
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
To be fair to the original article's author and contemporaries, Mein Kampf wasn't even written until 1923, during Hitler's imprisonment following the Munich Putsch. Until then, arguably, a concrete treatise on his plan for the treatment of European Jews (or at least Jews resident in greater Germany) didn't exist. The dissemination of his specific ideas, as opposed to rhetoric and expressed in his book, would only follow later during his rise-to-power.
If the context of this modern article is in reference to the rising power of other ideologue groups (whichever group that is that happens to fit the author's perspective) then I suppose it is still a valid observation to say that the Time article didn't do well to predict the future. But again, to be fair, Hitler wasn't a major player in the party or had his ideas expressed in a popular manifesto at that point.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Fenrir.Schutz said: »
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Quote:
On Wednesday, the New York Times reached deep in its own archives — back to November 21, 1922, and dredged up the first article it ever published about Adolf Hitler. It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded."
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
Times correspondent Cyril Brown spends most of the piece documenting the factors behind Hitler's early rise in Bavaria, Germany, including his oratorical skills, for example: "he exerts an uncanny control over audiences, possessing the remarkable ability to not only rouse his hearers to a fighting pitch of fury, but at will turn right around and reduce the same audience to docile coolness."
But the really extraordinary part of the article is the three paragraphs on anti-Semitism. Brown acknowledges Hitler's vicious anti-Semitism as the core of Hitler's appeal — and notes the terrified Jewish community was fleeing from him — but goes on to dismiss it as a play to satiate the rubes (bolding mine):
He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Now, Brown's sources in all likelihood did tell him that Hitler's anti-Semitism was for show. That was a popular opinion during Nazism's early days. But that speaks to how unprepared the world was for a movement as sincerely, radically violent as Hitler's to take power in one of its more important countries.
One other thing: if "violent anti-Semitism" was such a winning issue for Hitler, what does that tell us about the state of public opinion in Bavaria in 1922?
To be fair to the original article's author and contemporaries, Mein Kampf wasn't even written until 1923, during Hitler's imprisonment following the Munich Putsch. Until then, arguably, a concrete treatise on his plan for the treatment of European Jews (or at least Jews resident in greater Germany) didn't exist. The dissemination of his specific ideas, as opposed to rhetoric and expressed in his book, would only follow later during his rise-to-power.
If the context of this modern article is in reference to the rising power of other ideologue groups (whichever group that is that happens to fit the author's perspective) then I suppose it is still a valid observation to say that the Time article didn't do well to predict the future. But again, to be fair, Hitler wasn't a major player in the party or had his ideas expressed in a popular manifesto at that point.
Noone in their right mind is really ever going to try to bring down a government the people like, which is why the modern tactic is to obfuscate all the good stuff and plant the bad stuff right in your face. Or misdirect you to believe the good is actually bad, cause reasons and Obama.
Home | Blog | Subscribe | Podcasts | Donate
First Amendment Under Attack: 18 Examples of How They Are Coming for Our Free Speech
End of the American Dream
In the United States today, the First Amendment is under attack like never before. Technological innovations such as the Internet have made it possible for average Americans to communicate directly with one another in ways that completely bypass the mainstream media, and this is making the elite very uncomfortable. They have decided that they better come after our free speech before it is too late. Right now, free speech in America is being chipped away at it in thousands of different ways. On the one hand, you have the disciples of "political correctness" that want to make all forms of speech that are "offensive" to anyone against the law. On the other hand, you have those that are obsessed with "national security" that want to ban all speech that is critical of the U.S. government or the U.S. military. These twin forces are constantly seeking to push the First Amendment into a smaller and smaller box. If you say the wrong thing in America today, your website might be shut down, you could be suspended from school, you may find yourself out of a job and there is now even a possibility that you could be arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay without a trial.
Usually those that are targeted for their speech are those that the "establishment" does not like. That would include free thinkers, political activists, libertarians, true conservatives and Christians.
Instead of seeing the value in allowing everyone to say what they think, we are being taught in America today that there is speech that is "acceptable" and speech that is "not acceptable".
If we allow this attack on the First Amendment to continue, eventually we will wake up in a country where our freedom of speech is totally gone.
The following are 18 examples of how the elite are coming for our free speech....
#1 Two bills currently going through Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act, would give the U.S. government the ability to shut down literally millions of websites.
These bills are incredibly dangerous and if they are passed they could change the way that the Internet operates forever.
The following is from a piece thatGoogle co-founder Sergey Brinrecently authored about these new bills....
"Imagine my astonishment when the newest threat to free speech has come from none other but the United States. Two bills currently making their way through congress -- SOPA and PIPA -- give the U.S. government and copyright holders extraordinary powers including the ability to hijack DNS and censor search results (and this is even without so much as a proper court trial)"
Any website that posts "infringing material" could be instantly shut down under these news laws. For example, if one "infringing video" was posted on YouTube, the entire site could be taken down forever and permanently erased from Google in a matter of days. That is how serious these new bills are as Brin noted later on in his piece....
"While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don't believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world."
Can you imagine a world where there is no more YouTube, no more Facebook and no more Twitter?
That is what we could be looking at.
Sadly, many in the U.S. Congress seem absolutely obsessed with censoring the Internet.
U.S. Senator Chris Dodd once said the following....
"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites"
U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman has gone even farther. Just check out what he once said....
"Right now, China – the government – can disconnect parts of its internet in a case of war. We need to have that here too"
Not only that, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman also recently asked Google to install a "terrorist button" on all Blogger.com blogs so that readers can easily flag "terrorist content" for authorities.
The Internet is under attack from Washington D.C., and if you love the Internet you need to say something while you still can.
Please contact your representatives in Congress and tell them that they must vote against these bills.
#2 Politicians all over the United States are using law enforcement authorities to shut down free speech that they do not like. For example, during a recent meeting of the Pensacola City Council, a priest was nearly arrested after he calmly said some things that members of the city council did not like. If you have not seen this video of the incident yet, you should really check it out.
#3 The First Amendment is especially under attack in our public schools. For example, one group of high school athletes was recently suspended for "Tebowing" in the hallways of their school.
#4 The U.S. government is now encouraging children to spy on their parents as part of the "war on terror". If a school official hears that a parent has said the "wrong thing" at home, that parent could potentially get labeled as a "potential terrorist".
#5 Even though tens of millions of Americans have found the information and products sold by Kevin Trudeau to be incredibly helpful, the FTC has mercilessly gone after him. They have done everything that they can to shut him up and now he is being ordered to pay a ridiculous financial penalty of 37.6 million dollars
#6 Hillary Clinton recently said that certain "political, cultural, and religious beliefs" are obstacles to promoting alternative lifestyles around the world and therefore must not be tolerated....
"Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs"
#7 Some U.S. courts have ruled that it is unconstitutional to use the name of "Jesus Christ" during any official government meeting. The following comes from a recentWorldNetDaily article
But the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are standing by their victory in a U.S. circuit court decision that states even "a solitary reference to Jesus Christ" in invocations before the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners' meetings could do "violence to the pluralistic and inclusive values that are a defining feature of American public life."
#8 In North Carolina last year, a pastor was dismissed from his chaplain duties for praying in the name of Jesus.
#9 Down in Texas, the Department of Veteran Affairs actually tried to ban prayers that include the words "God" or "Jesus" during funeral services for veterans.
#10 Being able to engage in peaceful protests is one of the most important rights that the First Amendment protects. But in recent years that right has been under attack like never before. In a recent article I detailed some of the violence that law enforcement authorities have used against protesters in 2011....
In recent weeks, we have seen law enforcement authorities brutally dragging female protesters to the ground by their hair. We have also seen them use pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang stun grenades against protesters. If this is how protesters are going to be dealt with from now in America, then we have completely lost the moral high ground. How will we ever get other nations to take us seriously when we criticize their brutality against protesters when we are so brutal ourselves?
#11 As I have written aboutpreviously, the FBI is now systematically recording Internet talk radio programs all over the United States. This is going to cause many Internet talk radio hosts to watch what they are saying. After all, who wants a visit from the FBI? The following comes from a recent article by Mark Weaver of WMAL.com
If you call a radio talk show and get on the air, you might be recorded by the FBI.
The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet.
The FBI says it is not playing big brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence.
#12 In Wichita, Kansas last year, a Christian minister was handcuffed and hauled off to jail by police for sharing the gospel and handing out tracts to Muslims on a public sidewalk.
#13 On June 18, 2010 two Christians decided that they would peacefully pass out copies of the gospel of John on a public sidewalk outside a public Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan and within three minutes8 police officers surrounded them and placed them under arrest.
#14 As I have written aboutpreviously, a very revealing document obtained by Oath Keepers shows that the FBI is actually instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them. Apparently the FBI now believes that the definition of "suspicious activity" includes "radical theology" and making "extreme religious statements".
#15 Last year, a high school student in Southern California was suspended for two days because he had private conversations with his classmates during which he discussed Christianity. He was also banned from bringing his Bible to school ever again.
#16 A Christian consultant was recently fired by Bank of America and by Cisco because they discovered a book that he had written that expressed Christian viewpoints about social issues.
#17 Members of the U.S. Congresshave been banned from saying "Merry Christmas" in any piece of congressional mail that is paid for by U.S. tax dollars. Even if you do not celebrate that holiday, you should still be outraged at that infringement of free speech.
#18 Barack Obama recently signed a new law that officially designates the United States as part of the "battleground" on the war on terror. This new law allows the U.S. military to arrest American citizens if they are suspected of being "potential terrorists" and to detain them indefinitely without trial. So if the U.S. military comes and grabs your neighbor and ships him off to Guantanamo Bay, then this new law is probably to blame.
This new law is also going to have a huge chilling effect on free speech in America.
I have personally been contacted by several people that I know in recent weeks that are changing their behavior because of laws that have recently been passed.
It is not enough for the elite that they control Wall Street, most of the big corporations and the U.S. government.
They also want to shut all the rest of us up and keep us from complaining about it.
The elite literally want to control what we think and what we say.
We live in a country where political correctness is way out of control and where bureaucrats are constantly trying to push our free speech into a smaller and smaller box.
They are coming for our free speech my friends.
If you love free speech, and if you love the Internet as it currently exists, then you need to stand up and say something right now.
If we do not respond to these constant attacks on the First Amendment, then eventually we are going to lose it for good.
Reprinted with permission from End of the American Dream
December 21, 2011
Copyright © 2011 End of the American Dream
Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page
I found this pretty disturbing and talked about the national defense authorization act for 2015 and Mr nobody did not believe me that us military can operate on us soil to arrest citizens. Guess I was telling the truth all along and he couldn't accept it.
rp&r page 213 Let Freedom Reign
rp&r page 216 The Law That Never Was the 16th amendment.
rp&r page 223 The Constitutional Republic known as the USA.
rp&r page 239 Taxation without representation.
rp&r page 248 Keeping Government Honest with Handcuffs ( made in the US of course.)
rp&r page 260 Honest Debate questions
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
unless you become more watchful you will find the most important powers of government will fall into the hands of corporations President Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson's Farewell Speech excerpt said:
and unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control over your dearest interests has passed into the hands of these corporations.
Source
Like usual, you take something out of context, and skew it to your own argument. Like pretty much every single YouTube video you ever presented on this website.
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini said that.
Benito Mussolini said that.
No, he didn't (2 different sources stating otherwise)
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Boy was both of these folks right because it's clear in the USA that corporations are more represented then the actual citizens of its nation.
Oh wait, that's right, you couldn't even get quotes right, how are we to expect something as advanced as showing your reasoning?
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
I know that sounds scary well you should be afraid being sold to a corporation under maritime law that operates under its own rules and not our constitutional laws.
Name that law. Seriously, name it. If it exists, a
law student
such as yourself should be able to name it.Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Either by two peaceful measures by ballot or article 5 of the constitution or by a call to arms. That's being honest and reasonable. Never give up or lose sight of a better America.
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
I recognize what I am up against and I am not alone in that realization.
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Our constitutional republic can be restored by peaceful measures which I strongly recommend or by a call to arms granted by our 2nd amendment and our right to keep government honest and in the peoples best interests.
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
As it stands today we are only entitled to our own thoughts and views of facts that current establishment let's us know through our educational systems they approve of.
Never mind that these theories and facts are based by reality, it's all a government conspiracy.
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Freedom allows us to know the truth and does not cover up facts.
rp&r page 213 Lordgrim does a thing.
rp&r page 216 Lordgrim doesn't understand a thing.
rp&r page 221 Lordgrim asks a loaded, directed question.
rp&r page 223 Lordgrim doesn't have a clue.
rp&r page 228 Lordgrim pops.
rp&r page 233 Lordgrim: Leader of the Illuminati.
rp&r page 234 Lordgrim claims he is Jesus.
rp&r page 239 Lordgrim doesn't understand representation and appropriations bills.
rp&r page 240 Lordgrim claims to have an education, but doesn't prove it.
rp&r page 243 Lordgrim claims to be smarter than everyone else.
rp&r page 244 Lordgrim vs. the world.
rp&r page 245 Lordgrim posts some videos contradicting each other and his viewpoint.
rp&r page 246 Lordgrim takes the brown pill.
rp&r page 247 After 34 pages, Lordgrim still doesn't understand anything.
rp&r page 248 Lordgrim gets jelly.
rp&r page 249 Lordgrim accepts what he doesn't understand.
rp&r page 252 Lordgrim tried really hard.
rp&r page 254 Lordgrim gets old and stale.
rp&r page 255 Lordgrim's isolationist foreign trade agreement.
rp&r page 257 Lordgrim, master of the armchair political movement.
rp&r page 271 Lordgrim gives a dishonest debate.
Wait a minute, I'm confused. What's with the 2 r's?
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Home | Blog | Subscribe | Podcasts | Donate
First Amendment Under Attack: 18 Examples of How They Are Coming for Our Free Speech
End of the American Dream
Home | Blog | Subscribe | Podcasts | Donate
First Amendment Under Attack: 18 Examples of How They Are Coming for Our Free Speech
End of the American Dream
So, like usual, you take a "source" and let it speak your mind. Why am I not surprised?
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
I found this pretty disturbing and talked about the national defense authorization act for 2015 and Mr nobody did not believe me that us military can operate on us soil to arrest citizens.
Here is the appropriations bill. Please tell us where in this appropriations bill does it give the army the power to
I know it doesn't, as it is a *** appropriations bill. I'm sure you are going to take random words to make it sound like it does. I challenge you to give us the Section that states what you claim it does.
Siren.Lordgrim said: »
Guess I was telling the truth all along and he couldn't accept it.
You have never told the truth, you are telling fictitious ideas. You cannot even back your own statements, and most certainly cannot show your sources. You are more against the truth than anyone of the people you accuse to be dishonest.
rp&r page 213 Lordgrim does a thing.
rp&r page 216 Lordgrim doesn't understand a thing.
rp&r page 221 Lordgrim asks a loaded, directed question.
rp&r page 223 Lordgrim doesn't have a clue.
rp&r page 228 Lordgrim pops.
rp&r page 233 Lordgrim: Leader of the Illuminati.
rp&r page 234 Lordgrim claims he is Jesus.
rp&r page 239 Lordgrim doesn't understand representation and appropriations bills.
rp&r page 240 Lordgrim claims to have an education, but doesn't prove it.
rp&r page 243 Lordgrim claims to be smarter than everyone else.
rp&r page 244 Lordgrim vs. the world.
rp&r page 245 Lordgrim posts some videos contradicting each other and his viewpoint.
rp&r page 246 Lordgrim takes the brown pill.
rp&r page 247 After 34 pages, Lordgrim still doesn't understand anything.
rp&r page 248 Lordgrim gets jelly.
rp&r page 249 Lordgrim accepts what he doesn't understand.
rp&r page 252 Lordgrim tried really hard.
rp&r page 254 Lordgrim gets old and stale.
rp&r page 255 Lordgrim's isolationist foreign trade agreement.
rp&r page 257 Lordgrim, master of the armchair political movement.
rp&r page 271 Lordgrim gives a dishonest debate.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Wait a minute, I'm confused. What's with the 2 r's?
I'm assuming you are referring to this:
Quote:
rp&r page 271 Lordgrim gives a dishonest debate.
[+]
Oh Random, as in this thread. lol.
Brain fart.
Brain fart.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Oh Random, as in this thread. lol.
Brain fart Lordgrim.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.