It seems on a daily basis we see more bizarre legislative proposals coming from the Republican / Tea Party crowd. If you've read some of them you know what I mean. Whether it's a proposed law in Arizona to discriminate against Latinos or a proposed South Dakota law authorizing the murder of abortion providers, you have to wonder where the hell these people find inspiration. The Bible? The 1994 Contract Against America? The 2010 GOP version of the Contract Against America? No, that's not it!
It's WIKIPEDIA.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/04/alabama-bill-to-ban-sharia-law-was-cribbed-from-wikipedia/
Alabama bill to ban Sharia law was cribbed from Wikipedia
Yeah, you read it right. The bill was introduced by Alabama State Senator Gerald Allen. To give you some idea of the depth of this man's thinking, he was asked during an interview to define Sharia. However, he was unable to do so but quickly added his staff had drafted the legislation. A member of Allen's staff acknowledged the Sharia definition contained in the proposed legislation was lifted from Wikipedia.
Has Sharia law ever been used in Alabama? To date, there are no recorded instances of anyone in Alabama attempting to have Sharia law recognized by any court in Alabama.
As noted in the Raw Story article, "Allen's bill is very similar to one passed last fall in Oklahoma, which was described by legal experts as amounting to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Like the Oklahoma law, it would also ban the use of international law in state courts."
"A University of Oklahoma law professor called that law as 'a mess' and noted, 'I would like to see Oklahoma politicians explain if this means that the courts can no longer consider the Ten Commandments. Isn't that a precept of another culture and another nation? The result of this is that judges aren't going to know when and how they can look at sources of American law that were international law in origin.'"
The only way I can describe Allen is he's acting crazier than a sprayed roach!
Allen has a history of introducing draconian laws. For example, in 2004, he introduced a bill to ban books written by gay authors from schools and libraries. His suggestion for these books was "Dig a hole and dump them in it." Obviously, Allen isn't the most tolerant person in the world.
Some of the more extreme conservatives have, in recent years, gone out of their way to create irrational fear. When he introduced the anti-gay books legislation, Allen told the Guardian that "traditional family values" were under attack but as the Raw Story article noted "he was unable then to provide local examples of threats to heterosexuality."
Now, he's using irrational fear to create hatred against Muslims and, similar to the mythical threats to heterosexuality, Allen can't document a single case of Sharia law being used in Alabama. What I find distressing are the large numbers of Americans who fall for the kind of fear mongering that Allen and his ilk engage in on a daily basis.
Let's be honest. The chances of Sharia law being implemented in the United States is similar to the chances of Sarah Palin winning a Jeopardy contest.
I have a suggestion. Let's demand Allen and the rest of the extreme far-right conservatives in this country who don't have a damn clue about the constitution go back to doing what they've done best for more than a hundred years.
Don the white sheets and burn crosses in some barren field outside Waco.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Hello Friends, Families, Enemies and Anyone Who Has The Time To Search The Web For Hours To Find This Place!
This is a work in progress; I will be adding content as quickly as possible and then, hopefully, write a daily column that will vary from political opinion to venting to me basically being a smart ass. If you want to know how much a smart ass I can be, ask my wife.
You'll quickly learn my outlook on political life can be best summed up by quoting one of my favorite Texans, Kinky Friedman. For those unfamiliar with Friedman, the Kinkster is an icon in Austin and once remarked -- and I believe this is an appropriate way to look at American politics -- "If you're patient and you wait long enough, something will usually happen and it'll usually be something you don't like."
You should be warned that, oftentimes, if I can't sleep I'll spend some time writing something that is generally a collection of random thoughts. In case I post any, you should spend considerable time reading them because, trust me, they'll be some of the best writing you can possibly imagine. Yes, I wrote that last line without laughing.
You'll quickly learn my outlook on political life can be best summed up by quoting one of my favorite Texans, Kinky Friedman. For those unfamiliar with Friedman, the Kinkster is an icon in Austin and once remarked -- and I believe this is an appropriate way to look at American politics -- "If you're patient and you wait long enough, something will usually happen and it'll usually be something you don't like."
You should be warned that, oftentimes, if I can't sleep I'll spend some time writing something that is generally a collection of random thoughts. In case I post any, you should spend considerable time reading them because, trust me, they'll be some of the best writing you can possibly imagine. Yes, I wrote that last line without laughing.
Supreme Court Rules Funeral Protests Are Protected Speech
In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled members of the Westboro Baptist Church have a constitutional right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to protest at military funerals.
Historically, most free speech cases that reach the Supreme Court involve unpopular speech. However, just because it's wrong to say something hateful doesn't mean it's not protected by the First Amendment. I find it very disturbing that Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, believes the government should be able to limit protests because someone else disagrees with message of the protesters.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, wrote “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain."
Under the First Amendment, however, he went on “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Our right to free speech, he wrote, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
Fred Phelps and his gang of Christian thugs are hateful people but, under rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, they have a right to put their hate on display. Of course, the rest of us have a right to protest against them and to challenge their hate.
We cannot, however, demand the government shut them up.
Historically, most free speech cases that reach the Supreme Court involve unpopular speech. However, just because it's wrong to say something hateful doesn't mean it's not protected by the First Amendment. I find it very disturbing that Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, believes the government should be able to limit protests because someone else disagrees with message of the protesters.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, wrote “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain."
Under the First Amendment, however, he went on “we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Our right to free speech, he wrote, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
Fred Phelps and his gang of Christian thugs are hateful people but, under rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, they have a right to put their hate on display. Of course, the rest of us have a right to protest against them and to challenge their hate.
We cannot, however, demand the government shut them up.
South Dakota Stalls Bill That Could Legalize Killing Abortion Doctors
Elspeth Reeve – Thu Feb 17, 9:46 am ET
WASHINGTON, DC – South Dakota has put on hold a bill that would redefine justifiable homicide to permit killing someone to prevent a fetus from being hurt--a bill many interpreted as legalizing violence against abortion providers. State House speaker Val Rausch said he hasn't decided whether the amend the bill or just spike it, The New York Times' A. G. Sulzberger reports. Gov. Dennis Daugaard's spokesman called the legislation "a very bad idea."
The bill permits killing "if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person." There was some dispute over whether the measure would actually legalize killing abortion doctors. Slate's Dave Weigel wrote that it would only allow killing abortion doctors if abortion was illegal. But Time's Amy Sullivan notes that "whether or not the bill actually would permit such acts hardly matters if anti-abortion activists think that it does."
Weigel adds that the outcry over the bill is all part of a classic Democratic strategy on abortion: "finding a controversial bit of legislation and making it toxic."
---------------
You have to be crazier than a bedbug to not believe legislation authorizing the murder of an abortion provider isn't toxic.
Of course, this is all part of the grand strategy of far right conservatives to prohibit all abortions with the ultimate goal of overturning Griswold v. Connecticut. Nothing scares the hell out of far right conservative men than a woman who has control of her own body and, just for the hell of it, enjoys wild, uninhibited, sweaty sex and, in the process, decreases her chances of getting pregnant. French conservatives went batshit crazy when the condom was introduced for the aforementioned reason. Misogyny has a long and ugly history originating with the asinine Fall of Man theory one finds in Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
What's more than interesting are the large numbers of conservative women who've adopted the misogynist views of far right anti-choice men.
Far-right conservative women inhabit a political ideology dominated, in part, by talk radio's conservative, misogynist pimps who profit from the use of fear, division, and hatred, in the form of racism, sexism, and religious bigotry, to advance a very narrow, selfish agenda.
Trapped in such an environment, they desperately seek a way to free themselves from the oppression imposed upon them by the white misogynist pimps who dominate their lives and thoughts to the point where they become a mouthpiece for the very hate radio pimps who work to oppress them.
Let's examine the far-right conservative women we see on right wing political talk shows, especially Faux News. Away from the camera, these women may be decent and caring. However, in front of the cameras, they attempt to portray themselves as independent but, with every word, they 'mouth' the fear, hatred, racism, sexism, and religious bigotry in the rote manner their misogynist masters demand because, although these men have told conservative women they care about their freedoms, they would turn on conservative women in a second if these women attempted to utter a thought independent of the irrational dogma preached by talk radio's white, conservative misogynists.
In an earlier time and place, another woman trapped in a conservative misogynist world and seeking to find some form of self-expression, gave away her body to the pimps of Rome. Sadly, some far-right conservative women give away something far more precious, their souls.
WASHINGTON, DC – South Dakota has put on hold a bill that would redefine justifiable homicide to permit killing someone to prevent a fetus from being hurt--a bill many interpreted as legalizing violence against abortion providers. State House speaker Val Rausch said he hasn't decided whether the amend the bill or just spike it, The New York Times' A. G. Sulzberger reports. Gov. Dennis Daugaard's spokesman called the legislation "a very bad idea."
The bill permits killing "if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person." There was some dispute over whether the measure would actually legalize killing abortion doctors. Slate's Dave Weigel wrote that it would only allow killing abortion doctors if abortion was illegal. But Time's Amy Sullivan notes that "whether or not the bill actually would permit such acts hardly matters if anti-abortion activists think that it does."
Weigel adds that the outcry over the bill is all part of a classic Democratic strategy on abortion: "finding a controversial bit of legislation and making it toxic."
---------------
You have to be crazier than a bedbug to not believe legislation authorizing the murder of an abortion provider isn't toxic.
Of course, this is all part of the grand strategy of far right conservatives to prohibit all abortions with the ultimate goal of overturning Griswold v. Connecticut. Nothing scares the hell out of far right conservative men than a woman who has control of her own body and, just for the hell of it, enjoys wild, uninhibited, sweaty sex and, in the process, decreases her chances of getting pregnant. French conservatives went batshit crazy when the condom was introduced for the aforementioned reason. Misogyny has a long and ugly history originating with the asinine Fall of Man theory one finds in Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
What's more than interesting are the large numbers of conservative women who've adopted the misogynist views of far right anti-choice men.
Far-right conservative women inhabit a political ideology dominated, in part, by talk radio's conservative, misogynist pimps who profit from the use of fear, division, and hatred, in the form of racism, sexism, and religious bigotry, to advance a very narrow, selfish agenda.
Trapped in such an environment, they desperately seek a way to free themselves from the oppression imposed upon them by the white misogynist pimps who dominate their lives and thoughts to the point where they become a mouthpiece for the very hate radio pimps who work to oppress them.
Let's examine the far-right conservative women we see on right wing political talk shows, especially Faux News. Away from the camera, these women may be decent and caring. However, in front of the cameras, they attempt to portray themselves as independent but, with every word, they 'mouth' the fear, hatred, racism, sexism, and religious bigotry in the rote manner their misogynist masters demand because, although these men have told conservative women they care about their freedoms, they would turn on conservative women in a second if these women attempted to utter a thought independent of the irrational dogma preached by talk radio's white, conservative misogynists.
In an earlier time and place, another woman trapped in a conservative misogynist world and seeking to find some form of self-expression, gave away her body to the pimps of Rome. Sadly, some far-right conservative women give away something far more precious, their souls.
Populares, Taxes and The Insanity of Ayn Rand
The quoted material, below, is from "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History Of Ancient Rome" by Michael Parenti. As a historical background, Caesar can be identified with Populares ("favoring the people", singular popularis) who were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who relied on the people's assemblies and tribunate to acquire political power. They are regarded in modern scholarship as in opposition to the optimates, who are identified with the conservative interests of a senatorial elite. The populares themselves, however, were also of senatorial rank and might be patricians or noble plebeians.
The populares addressed the problems of the urban plebs, particularly subsidizing a grain dole, and in general favored limiting slavery, since slavery took jobs from poor free citizens. They also garnered political support by attempts to expand citizenship to communities outside Rome and Italy.
Read carefully and replace the word "optimates" with "conservative" and I ask whether this sounds exactly like the current political situation in the United States. I should send this to Rick Snyder.
"But ideology is not merely a promotion of class interest. The function of ideology is precisely to cloak narrowly selfish interests, wedding them to a more lofty and capacious view of society. This helps explain why the optimates' ideology carries such a familiar ring today; it contains the standard mystifying tenets of all ruling propertied classes throughout the ages. These might be summarized as follows:
"First, and foremost, the oligarchic clique represents its own privileged special interests to the general interest. Cicero laid the groundwork for future generations of elite propagandists when he argued that the well-being of the Republic and the entire society depended on the well-being of the prominent few who presided so wisely and resplendently over public affairs, and who high station gave proof of a deserving excellence.
"Second, ruling-class protagonists warn that such things as doles [welfare for the poor], rent caps, and debt cancellations undermine the moral fiber of those indigents who are the beneficiaries, pandering to their profligate ways at the expense of the more responsible and stable elements of society. [How often have you heard conservatives rail against welfare for the poor but, at the same time, argue tax cuts/subsidies must be given to businesses or the wealthy?]
"Third, the ruling elites maintain that redistributive social programs deliver ruinous costs upon the entire society. There is not enough land for small farmers to be resettled, not enough funds for grain doles or public projects that would employ hard-up plebs. No notice is taken that there is always enough money for war and massive public subsidies to the wealthiest stratum.
"Fourth, when unable to openly attack popular reforms that bridle their own overweening greed, the oligarchs attack the reformers and their motives. They portray mass agitation not as a righteous resistance to economic injustice but as 'class war,' the work of unscrupulous, unstable, self-aggrandizing, power-lusting demagogues who, in Cicero's words, 'inflame the passions of the unsophisticated multitude,' but really do not have the people's interests at heart." [Notice how conservatives have accused President Obama of being a socialist or how conservatives often claim Obama's supporters are not educated. For example, despite lies related to health care reform, the majority of Americans, in very polling instance, favored the public option. Worse, more extreme conservatives use the divide and conquer routine wherein they pit one group against another by using wedge issues like equality for LGBT folks or irrational fears related to immigration.]
Next, let's revisit taxation; the importance of understanding conservative fallacies related to taxes cannot be stressed enough.
In 2008, Larry Beinhart wrote an article regarding conservative "fog facts" about taxes. Using two completed sets of data, historic income tax and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rates in the United States, Beinhart concluded: High taxes correlate with strong economic growth. The four periods of greatest economic growth in United States history, by pretty much any measure, are:
a) World War II (1941 - 1945) - The top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent
b) Postwar under Truman and Eisenhower: The top tax rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent.
c) The Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's [George Herbert Walker] top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent.
d) The first two administrations of Franklin Roosevelt (1933 - 1940). When Roosevelt came into office, Herbert Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.
Conservatives have spent a lot of time and used a lot of ink trying to prove the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Regardless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time FDR came into office to when the United States entered World War II.
The bottom line here, according to Beinhart, is that tax increases create economic growth whereas moderate tax cuts are followed by stagnant growth. One need to look no further than George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent to prove the point.
Furthermore, contrary to conservative claims, the wealthy do not create jobs nor does increasing military expenditures create jobs. The best way to create jobs is a combination of investment in home construction and tax cuts targeted to working middle class families and the working power who spend money that, then, fuels economic growth.
Related to the middle class, I'll say a word here about unions and union membership. The right spends a great deal of time and money bashing unions and union members. I'll expand on this in a later email; however, research data that show a clear relationship between falling unionization rates, stagnating wages and increases in equality and poverty. This is true in all countries. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) indicates that "countries with high levels of union density or collective bargaining coverage are much more equal than countries with low union density."
"Gaps between higher-paid and lower-paid workers are lowest where union density is low, and bargaining is either centralized or closely coordinated. For example, the top 10% of male full-time workers earn at least 4.6 times as much as the bottom 10% in the U.S. compared to 3.7 times as much in Canada, 2.9 times as much in Germany, and just 2.3 times as much in Sweden. High union density also narrows pay gaps between women and men, and between younger and older workers. By narrowing pay gaps, unions counter poverty and make family incomes much more equal than would otherwise be the case."
As I have stated previously, in several articles, it is pure hypocrisy for the right wing to oppose collective bargaining for workers and, at the same time, support collective lobbying by pro-business groups such as the National Manufacturers Association or the Chamber of Commerce.
Now, we will move on to the conservative fascination with Ayn Rand. One cannot underestimate the impact Randian thought has had on the conservative movement in the United States. Her best known books are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that offer moral and intellectual justification for regressive policies causing great pain for working families.
In Rand's worldview, the world is made up of a few virile, virtuous "producers" and, what Rand described as "parasites" [read working class Americans] who feed off their labor. Rand claimed it was producers who created wealth and make a better world. Rand believed these economic supermen should be free of societal obligations including any responsibility to pay taxes; she claimed this was the apex of morality.
However, if one more deeply examines Rand's philosophy, one can easily discover a large segment of the conservative movement is following the dictates of a sociopath. How so?
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand's superhero is John Galt. This is where it gets interesting. In the 1920s, when Rand was creating her philosophy, she became enthralled with an American real-life serial killer named William Edward Hickman who, 1927, gruesomely killed and dismembered a 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker. Rand's early works are filled with glowing, even worshipful, praise of Hickman.
The obvious question is why did Rand admire Hickman so much. She wrote, "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She gushingly wrote Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' The stunning part is Rand's gushing description of Hickman is found, virtually word for word, in her description of Howard Roark, the capitalist superhero of The Fountainhead wherein Rand wrote of Roark, "He was born without the ability to consider others."
It is extraordinary that the United States is, perhaps, the only western democratic country where, as described by journalist Mark Ames, "conservative elites openly exhibit distaste for the working poor." Ames believes this can be attributed to the popularity of Rand among conservatives. In fact, the Library of Congress found that Atlas Shrugged is the second most influential book in the United States after the Bible.
Ames goes on to say "When you hear politicians or Tea Partiers dividing up the world between 'producers' and 'collectivism,' just know those ideas and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a serial-killer groupie. And when you see them taking their razor blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from total abject destitution -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- and bragging about how they are slashing these programs for 'moral' reasons, just remember Ayn's morality and who inspired her."
Care to see Randian philosophy enacted into law. One need look no further than Jan Brewer, Arizona governor, who in 2010 signed into law a budget that eliminated the Children's Health Insurance Program thus denying health care to forty-seven thousand low-income children in Arizona. To make matters worse, she proposed increasing the state's sales tax which is an extremely regressive tax that falls disproportionately on working people.
Sources:
1) Michael Parenti, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome (New York: The New Press, 2003) pp. 192-193.
2) Joshua Holland, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2010), pp. 95 - 97, 230 - 231, 27 - 29
The populares addressed the problems of the urban plebs, particularly subsidizing a grain dole, and in general favored limiting slavery, since slavery took jobs from poor free citizens. They also garnered political support by attempts to expand citizenship to communities outside Rome and Italy.
Read carefully and replace the word "optimates" with "conservative" and I ask whether this sounds exactly like the current political situation in the United States. I should send this to Rick Snyder.
"But ideology is not merely a promotion of class interest. The function of ideology is precisely to cloak narrowly selfish interests, wedding them to a more lofty and capacious view of society. This helps explain why the optimates' ideology carries such a familiar ring today; it contains the standard mystifying tenets of all ruling propertied classes throughout the ages. These might be summarized as follows:
"First, and foremost, the oligarchic clique represents its own privileged special interests to the general interest. Cicero laid the groundwork for future generations of elite propagandists when he argued that the well-being of the Republic and the entire society depended on the well-being of the prominent few who presided so wisely and resplendently over public affairs, and who high station gave proof of a deserving excellence.
"Second, ruling-class protagonists warn that such things as doles [welfare for the poor], rent caps, and debt cancellations undermine the moral fiber of those indigents who are the beneficiaries, pandering to their profligate ways at the expense of the more responsible and stable elements of society. [How often have you heard conservatives rail against welfare for the poor but, at the same time, argue tax cuts/subsidies must be given to businesses or the wealthy?]
"Third, the ruling elites maintain that redistributive social programs deliver ruinous costs upon the entire society. There is not enough land for small farmers to be resettled, not enough funds for grain doles or public projects that would employ hard-up plebs. No notice is taken that there is always enough money for war and massive public subsidies to the wealthiest stratum.
"Fourth, when unable to openly attack popular reforms that bridle their own overweening greed, the oligarchs attack the reformers and their motives. They portray mass agitation not as a righteous resistance to economic injustice but as 'class war,' the work of unscrupulous, unstable, self-aggrandizing, power-lusting demagogues who, in Cicero's words, 'inflame the passions of the unsophisticated multitude,' but really do not have the people's interests at heart." [Notice how conservatives have accused President Obama of being a socialist or how conservatives often claim Obama's supporters are not educated. For example, despite lies related to health care reform, the majority of Americans, in very polling instance, favored the public option. Worse, more extreme conservatives use the divide and conquer routine wherein they pit one group against another by using wedge issues like equality for LGBT folks or irrational fears related to immigration.]
Next, let's revisit taxation; the importance of understanding conservative fallacies related to taxes cannot be stressed enough.
In 2008, Larry Beinhart wrote an article regarding conservative "fog facts" about taxes. Using two completed sets of data, historic income tax and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rates in the United States, Beinhart concluded: High taxes correlate with strong economic growth. The four periods of greatest economic growth in United States history, by pretty much any measure, are:
a) World War II (1941 - 1945) - The top tax rate varied from 88 to 94 percent
b) Postwar under Truman and Eisenhower: The top tax rate bounced around from 81 to 92 percent.
c) The Clinton years: Clinton raised Bush's [George Herbert Walker] top rate of 31 percent to 37 percent and then to 39 percent.
d) The first two administrations of Franklin Roosevelt (1933 - 1940). When Roosevelt came into office, Herbert Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25 to 63 percent. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79 percent.
Conservatives have spent a lot of time and used a lot of ink trying to prove the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Regardless, the economy grew 58 percent from the time FDR came into office to when the United States entered World War II.
The bottom line here, according to Beinhart, is that tax increases create economic growth whereas moderate tax cuts are followed by stagnant growth. One need to look no further than George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent to prove the point.
Furthermore, contrary to conservative claims, the wealthy do not create jobs nor does increasing military expenditures create jobs. The best way to create jobs is a combination of investment in home construction and tax cuts targeted to working middle class families and the working power who spend money that, then, fuels economic growth.
Related to the middle class, I'll say a word here about unions and union membership. The right spends a great deal of time and money bashing unions and union members. I'll expand on this in a later email; however, research data that show a clear relationship between falling unionization rates, stagnating wages and increases in equality and poverty. This is true in all countries. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) indicates that "countries with high levels of union density or collective bargaining coverage are much more equal than countries with low union density."
"Gaps between higher-paid and lower-paid workers are lowest where union density is low, and bargaining is either centralized or closely coordinated. For example, the top 10% of male full-time workers earn at least 4.6 times as much as the bottom 10% in the U.S. compared to 3.7 times as much in Canada, 2.9 times as much in Germany, and just 2.3 times as much in Sweden. High union density also narrows pay gaps between women and men, and between younger and older workers. By narrowing pay gaps, unions counter poverty and make family incomes much more equal than would otherwise be the case."
As I have stated previously, in several articles, it is pure hypocrisy for the right wing to oppose collective bargaining for workers and, at the same time, support collective lobbying by pro-business groups such as the National Manufacturers Association or the Chamber of Commerce.
Now, we will move on to the conservative fascination with Ayn Rand. One cannot underestimate the impact Randian thought has had on the conservative movement in the United States. Her best known books are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that offer moral and intellectual justification for regressive policies causing great pain for working families.
In Rand's worldview, the world is made up of a few virile, virtuous "producers" and, what Rand described as "parasites" [read working class Americans] who feed off their labor. Rand claimed it was producers who created wealth and make a better world. Rand believed these economic supermen should be free of societal obligations including any responsibility to pay taxes; she claimed this was the apex of morality.
However, if one more deeply examines Rand's philosophy, one can easily discover a large segment of the conservative movement is following the dictates of a sociopath. How so?
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand's superhero is John Galt. This is where it gets interesting. In the 1920s, when Rand was creating her philosophy, she became enthralled with an American real-life serial killer named William Edward Hickman who, 1927, gruesomely killed and dismembered a 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker. Rand's early works are filled with glowing, even worshipful, praise of Hickman.
The obvious question is why did Rand admire Hickman so much. She wrote, "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She gushingly wrote Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' The stunning part is Rand's gushing description of Hickman is found, virtually word for word, in her description of Howard Roark, the capitalist superhero of The Fountainhead wherein Rand wrote of Roark, "He was born without the ability to consider others."
It is extraordinary that the United States is, perhaps, the only western democratic country where, as described by journalist Mark Ames, "conservative elites openly exhibit distaste for the working poor." Ames believes this can be attributed to the popularity of Rand among conservatives. In fact, the Library of Congress found that Atlas Shrugged is the second most influential book in the United States after the Bible.
Ames goes on to say "When you hear politicians or Tea Partiers dividing up the world between 'producers' and 'collectivism,' just know those ideas and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a serial-killer groupie. And when you see them taking their razor blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from total abject destitution -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- and bragging about how they are slashing these programs for 'moral' reasons, just remember Ayn's morality and who inspired her."
Care to see Randian philosophy enacted into law. One need look no further than Jan Brewer, Arizona governor, who in 2010 signed into law a budget that eliminated the Children's Health Insurance Program thus denying health care to forty-seven thousand low-income children in Arizona. To make matters worse, she proposed increasing the state's sales tax which is an extremely regressive tax that falls disproportionately on working people.
Sources:
1) Michael Parenti, The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome (New York: The New Press, 2003) pp. 192-193.
2) Joshua Holland, The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2010), pp. 95 - 97, 230 - 231, 27 - 29
Undocumented Persons Have Constitutional Rights
Although right wing talk radio hatemongers, such as Glenn Beck, and proponents of Arizona's racist "papers please" law frequently cite the constitution during their racist, anti-immigrant rants, they actually know little, if anything, about the United States Constitution.
Beck, et al attempt to support their anti-immigrant rhetoric by citing the fact that the words "illegal aliens" don't appear in the constitution. Therefore, they claim, undocumented persons have no constitutional rights. The courts have held otherwise.
Contrary to the claims of Beck and his fellow travelers, the constitution is a "living document" and has repeatedly been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While Beck, et al may argue "We the People of the United States" refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, stating "...it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of undocumented persons in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The undocumented persons who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term... The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the Fourteenth Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply equally to undocumented persons, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.
In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the Fourteenth Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the Fourteenth Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
While undocumented persons do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to citizens of the United States who are convicted of felonies. In the final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, undocumented persons are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
Beck, et al attempt to support their anti-immigrant rhetoric by citing the fact that the words "illegal aliens" don't appear in the constitution. Therefore, they claim, undocumented persons have no constitutional rights. The courts have held otherwise.
Contrary to the claims of Beck and his fellow travelers, the constitution is a "living document" and has repeatedly been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While Beck, et al may argue "We the People of the United States" refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, stating "...it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of undocumented persons in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The undocumented persons who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term... The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
When the Supreme Court decides cases dealing with First Amendment rights, it typically draws guidance from the Fourteenth Amendment's principal of "equal protection under the law." In essence, the "equal protection" clause extends First Amendment protection to anyone and everyone covered by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Through its consistent rulings that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments apply equally to undocumented persons, they also enjoy First Amendment rights.
In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the Fourteenth Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment:
"The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the Fourteenth Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
While undocumented persons do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution, specifically the rights to vote or possess firearms, these rights can also be denied to citizens of the United States who are convicted of felonies. In the final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, undocumented persons are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
Hitler Was A Leftist Myth
One of the more outrageous lies often employed by conservatives/Republican/Tea Party nutcases is their wrongheaded argument that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were leftists. However, any reasonable review of history and Hitler's words indicate Hitler was far from a leftist. A review of Nazi policies/political beliefs will prove Hitler and the Nazis were, in fact, fascists and far to the right on the political spectrum.
"Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named 'National Socialist.' But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic."
In addition to the above, it should be noted the political beliefs of the Nazis and Adolf HItler were on the far right. For example, Hitler and the Nazis, as the article notes, advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, and exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Right wing Americans will often argue Hitler was a leftist because he advocated the individual should submit to the state. It's a crazy argument since conservatives in the United States frequently advocate blind obedience to the state, especially when conservative leaders involve the United States in military actions. One only need to recall the reaction of conservatives when thousands of brave Americans opposed the invasion of Iraq or the First Gulf War.
As noted in the article, political scientists are loath to label people "liberal" or "conservative" based solely on individualism or collectivism. The more accurate approach is to examine the group affiliation. It can be argued that conservatives, in the United States, favor groups that are, in fact, quite dictatorial such as the military, fundamentalist Christian churches, the patriarchal family, and corporations.
As for Hitler, his identification of the state was connected to a racially pure people of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler used words like "Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To be part of Germany, in Hitler's words, was to be of pure German blood. Hitler certainly didn't include Jews as part of the German state, but he did include Germans outside Germany, such as in Austria. Hitler's political philosophy was completely connected to racism and, in that regard, one can understand why conservatives in the United States who use coded racist language feel uncomfortable with the fact that Hitler and the Nazis were on the far right of the political spectrum.
In fact, a primary goal of the Nazis was to abolish individualism because they believed it was a liberal or Marxist concept. Hitler wrote, "The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
Another argument advanced by conservatives is that the United States should be, in many ways, homogenous. Celebration of any culture other than white, European is deemed, by many conservatives, as anti-American. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, "The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race."
Note how frequently conservatives use racist terms such as "founding stock" or advance the idea that all Americans must assimilate into a white, Northern European culture. Conservatives, in the United States, if one takes them at their word, greatly fear immigration of non-white peoples into the United States and greatly fear demographic changes that will, in a few years, make whites a minority. Note Hitler's words which sound eerily similar to arguments espoused by far right anti-immigration groups.
"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position."
Contrary to the claims of American conservatives, Hitler and the Nazis loathed Marxism and liberalism. In fact, Hitler, similar to modern American conservatives, ignored the vast differences between Social Democracy and Communism. Again, eerily echoing modern American conservatives, Hitler wrote, "The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." How often have we seen right wing hate radio and Fox News hosts claim President Obama is a Marxist or Communist whose goal is to turn the United States into a communist country? Hitler's views regarding Marxism and Communism was deeply rooted in his intense hatred of Jews, and we have witnessed Glenn Beck promote a book by a virulent anti-Jewish bigot
One of the more amusing claims, by conservatives, is that Hitler must surely be a leftist since he was a vegetarian. However, due to their ignorance of the Nazis, right wing American conservatives don't know Hitler's anti-meat beliefs began with the death of Geli Raubal.
One ridiculous claim by right wing conservatives is related to unions. They claim Hitler was pro-union when, in fact, Hitler banned trade unions in May, 1933. Union offices were closed, union funds were confiscated, and union leaders were put in prison. To replace unions, the Nazis created the German Labour Front which greatly reduced the pay of workers, and abolished the right to strike. More than interesting is that, at any given time and on any number of news sites and/or social networking sites, one can easily find blogs and comments by American conservatives advocating the destruction of unions and abolishing the right to strike.
A more ridiculous claim, by right wing conservatives, is that Hitler confiscated guns in Germany. The allege Hitler said, "1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
However, the quote is a fraud. There's no record Hitler ever uttered the words.
As noted in the article, the reality is that, prior to Nazi rule, Germany already had strict gun control laws which were a provision of the Treaty of Versailles. Following World War I, the Allied countries desired to make sure Germany posed no threat to its neighbors. In January 1997, The Firearms Policy Journal stated, "The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."
Furthermore, in 1928 (April 12), Germany enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. This was five years before Hitler came to power, and the law was not effective and wasn't enforced. More importantly, and contrary to the claims of right wing American conservatives, Hitler and the Nazis actually relaxed gun ownership restrictions in passing the German Weapons Law. Thus, the claims of right wing conservatives about Nazis and guns is a complete lie.
Another common trait shared by American right wing extremists and Adolf Hitler was their anti-intellectualism. Notice how right wing extremists attack schools, education, science and espouse outrageous anti-science ideas like creationism. Hitler wrote, "The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field."
Another area of common ground between Hitler and American right wing extremists is their placement of religion over secularism. Without doubt, conservatives, especially Christian fundamentalists, are waging war against the secular constitution of the United States. Adolf Hitler often invoked God in his writings and speeches. Hitler was, most likely, an atheist, but that didn't prevent him from invoking God. An example is the following:
"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever."
Hitler and the Nazis never attempted to created a state religion; however, the Nazis used churches to advance the cause of fascism. It's interesting the Catholic Church never placed Mein Kampf on its Index of Prohibited Books. In fact, it can be argued Hitler and the Catholic Church had something in common, namely hatred of Jews.
As noted, historian Guenter Lewy described a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities, on April 26, 1933. Lewy stated, "On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him."
Any serious examination of history reveals Christianity has always been a source of extreme anti-Jewish bigotry. In other words, Hitler's anti-Jewish bigotry found a receptive audience among Catholic leaders including the Pope. As noted in the article, "The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: 'It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God.' As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: 'Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism."
Hitler believed his persecution of Jews as a holy crusade, and he embraced Christianity's hatred of Jews and adopted Christianity's practices against Jews. History reveals it was Christians who first used deracination, special taxes, exclusion from public office, bans on intermarriage, placing Jews into ghettos, forcing Jews to wear yellow badges, destroying synagogues as well as Jewish homes and businesses, burning Jewish literature, and large-scale murder of Jews.
In fact, there were many active Catholic, and Protestant, Nazis who played a role in the Holocaust. Yet, the Catholic Church never excommunicated any of them including Hitler. Yet, the Catholic Church, as well as Protestant churches, strongly denounced Marxism. At the same time, they embraced fascism in Italy, Germany, Spain, and Austria.
As for Protestant leaders, they believed Nazism, and Hitler, were a necessary antidote to modernism [it's more than interesting how many U.S. conservatives denounce modernism]. Writing of these Protestants, Robert P. Erickson, in his "Theologians under Hitler," wrote that Protestant leaders encouraged German Protestants to feel "responsible before God to assist the work of the Fuhrer" and supporting the Nazis in "all things" was a "God directed call."
However, as the article noted, "...the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, 'Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?' As perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility."
Thus, any claim that Hitler was a leftist is more than absurd; it's an outrageous lie. In fact, Hitler's beliefs were strongly far right and conservative in that he came to power through support from German corporations and those corporations then assisted the Nazis in many ways including manufacturing military weapons and devising methods to murder Jews, he used religious language to promote his warmongering and anti-Jewish bigotry, he used divisive language to turn German against German and especially to turn ordinary Germans against Jews, he used racist laws and language to segregate and dehumanize Jews and other groups, he was strongly nationalistic, he hated communism and social democracy while ignoring the differences between the two, he used lies to advance the cause of war, and he was anti-union.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Sources (as noted)
Endnotes:
1. William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), p. 263.
2. Ibid., p. 143.
3. Ibid., p. 264.
4. Hitler, quoted in Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1971), p. 228.
5. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), pp. 393-4.
6. Ibid., p. 398.
7. Ibid., p. 297.
8. Ibid., p. 298.
9. Ibid., p. 290.
10. Ibid., pp. 291-2.
11. Ibid., p. 291.
12. Ibid., p. 401.
13. Ibid., p. 402.
14. Ibid., p. 214.
15. Ibid., p. 405.
16. Ibid., p. 404.
17. Ibid., p. 449.
18. Ibid., p. 289.
19. Ibid., p. 516-17.
20. Quoted in Bullock, pp. 11-12.
21. Ibid., p. 230.
22. Hitler, p. 396.
23. Ibid., p. 627.
24. Ibid., p. 288.
25. Ibid., p. 344.
26. Ibid., p. 465.
27. Ibid., p. 81.
28. Ibid., p. 82.
29. Ibid., p. 449.
30. Ibid., p. 60.
31. Ibid., p. 78
32. Ibid., p. 51.
33. Bullock, p. 228-9.
34. Hitler, p. 535.
35. Ibid., p. 155.
36. Quoted in Bullock, p. 102.
37. Hitler, p. 376.
38. Ibid., p. 382.
39. Ibid., p. 65.
40. Ibid., p. 437.
41. Ibid., p. 299.
42. Ibid., p. 338.
43. Ibid., p. 340.
44. Ibid., p. 340.
45. Ibid., p. 284.
46. Ibid., p. 351.
47. The History Place, "The Rise of Adolf Hitler: Success and a Suicide," http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/success.htm
48. Hitler, p. 418.
49. Ibid., p. 429.
50. Ibid., p. 408.
51. Ibid., p. 408.
52. Ibid., p. 346.
53. Ibid., p. 459.
54. Ibid., p. 267.
55. Ibid., p. 116.
56. Ibid., p. 116.
57. Ibid., p. 268.
58. Ibid., p. 563.
59. Bullock, p. 35.
60. Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London and New York) 1964, p. 50ff.
61. Friedrich Heer, God's First Love (New York: Weybright and Talley, 1967), p. 320, citing Lewy, pp. 249-250; see also Falconi, Carlo, Il silenzio di Pio XII (Milan) 1965.
62. Heer, p. 319.
63. Lewy, p. 57 ff.
64. Ibid., p. 94 ff.
65. Ibid., p. 100f.
66. Ibid., p. 105.
67. Heer, p. 310.
68. Heer, p. 110.
69. Giovannetti, A., Der Vatikan und der Krieg (Cologne) 1961.
70. Lewy, p. 304.
71. Robert P. Erickson, Theologians under Hitler (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 84-87, 143.
72. Michael Parenti, God and His Demons (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010), pp. 60-62
"Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named 'National Socialist.' But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic."
In addition to the above, it should be noted the political beliefs of the Nazis and Adolf HItler were on the far right. For example, Hitler and the Nazis, as the article notes, advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, and exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Right wing Americans will often argue Hitler was a leftist because he advocated the individual should submit to the state. It's a crazy argument since conservatives in the United States frequently advocate blind obedience to the state, especially when conservative leaders involve the United States in military actions. One only need to recall the reaction of conservatives when thousands of brave Americans opposed the invasion of Iraq or the First Gulf War.
As noted in the article, political scientists are loath to label people "liberal" or "conservative" based solely on individualism or collectivism. The more accurate approach is to examine the group affiliation. It can be argued that conservatives, in the United States, favor groups that are, in fact, quite dictatorial such as the military, fundamentalist Christian churches, the patriarchal family, and corporations.
As for Hitler, his identification of the state was connected to a racially pure people of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler used words like "Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To be part of Germany, in Hitler's words, was to be of pure German blood. Hitler certainly didn't include Jews as part of the German state, but he did include Germans outside Germany, such as in Austria. Hitler's political philosophy was completely connected to racism and, in that regard, one can understand why conservatives in the United States who use coded racist language feel uncomfortable with the fact that Hitler and the Nazis were on the far right of the political spectrum.
In fact, a primary goal of the Nazis was to abolish individualism because they believed it was a liberal or Marxist concept. Hitler wrote, "The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
Another argument advanced by conservatives is that the United States should be, in many ways, homogenous. Celebration of any culture other than white, European is deemed, by many conservatives, as anti-American. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote, "The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race."
Note how frequently conservatives use racist terms such as "founding stock" or advance the idea that all Americans must assimilate into a white, Northern European culture. Conservatives, in the United States, if one takes them at their word, greatly fear immigration of non-white peoples into the United States and greatly fear demographic changes that will, in a few years, make whites a minority. Note Hitler's words which sound eerily similar to arguments espoused by far right anti-immigration groups.
"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position."
Contrary to the claims of American conservatives, Hitler and the Nazis loathed Marxism and liberalism. In fact, Hitler, similar to modern American conservatives, ignored the vast differences between Social Democracy and Communism. Again, eerily echoing modern American conservatives, Hitler wrote, "The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." How often have we seen right wing hate radio and Fox News hosts claim President Obama is a Marxist or Communist whose goal is to turn the United States into a communist country? Hitler's views regarding Marxism and Communism was deeply rooted in his intense hatred of Jews, and we have witnessed Glenn Beck promote a book by a virulent anti-Jewish bigot
One of the more amusing claims, by conservatives, is that Hitler must surely be a leftist since he was a vegetarian. However, due to their ignorance of the Nazis, right wing American conservatives don't know Hitler's anti-meat beliefs began with the death of Geli Raubal.
One ridiculous claim by right wing conservatives is related to unions. They claim Hitler was pro-union when, in fact, Hitler banned trade unions in May, 1933. Union offices were closed, union funds were confiscated, and union leaders were put in prison. To replace unions, the Nazis created the German Labour Front which greatly reduced the pay of workers, and abolished the right to strike. More than interesting is that, at any given time and on any number of news sites and/or social networking sites, one can easily find blogs and comments by American conservatives advocating the destruction of unions and abolishing the right to strike.
A more ridiculous claim, by right wing conservatives, is that Hitler confiscated guns in Germany. The allege Hitler said, "1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
However, the quote is a fraud. There's no record Hitler ever uttered the words.
As noted in the article, the reality is that, prior to Nazi rule, Germany already had strict gun control laws which were a provision of the Treaty of Versailles. Following World War I, the Allied countries desired to make sure Germany posed no threat to its neighbors. In January 1997, The Firearms Policy Journal stated, "The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."
Furthermore, in 1928 (April 12), Germany enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. This was five years before Hitler came to power, and the law was not effective and wasn't enforced. More importantly, and contrary to the claims of right wing American conservatives, Hitler and the Nazis actually relaxed gun ownership restrictions in passing the German Weapons Law. Thus, the claims of right wing conservatives about Nazis and guns is a complete lie.
Another common trait shared by American right wing extremists and Adolf Hitler was their anti-intellectualism. Notice how right wing extremists attack schools, education, science and espouse outrageous anti-science ideas like creationism. Hitler wrote, "The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field."
Another area of common ground between Hitler and American right wing extremists is their placement of religion over secularism. Without doubt, conservatives, especially Christian fundamentalists, are waging war against the secular constitution of the United States. Adolf Hitler often invoked God in his writings and speeches. Hitler was, most likely, an atheist, but that didn't prevent him from invoking God. An example is the following:
"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever."
Hitler and the Nazis never attempted to created a state religion; however, the Nazis used churches to advance the cause of fascism. It's interesting the Catholic Church never placed Mein Kampf on its Index of Prohibited Books. In fact, it can be argued Hitler and the Catholic Church had something in common, namely hatred of Jews.
As noted, historian Guenter Lewy described a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities, on April 26, 1933. Lewy stated, "On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him."
Any serious examination of history reveals Christianity has always been a source of extreme anti-Jewish bigotry. In other words, Hitler's anti-Jewish bigotry found a receptive audience among Catholic leaders including the Pope. As noted in the article, "The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: 'It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God.' As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: 'Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism."
Hitler believed his persecution of Jews as a holy crusade, and he embraced Christianity's hatred of Jews and adopted Christianity's practices against Jews. History reveals it was Christians who first used deracination, special taxes, exclusion from public office, bans on intermarriage, placing Jews into ghettos, forcing Jews to wear yellow badges, destroying synagogues as well as Jewish homes and businesses, burning Jewish literature, and large-scale murder of Jews.
In fact, there were many active Catholic, and Protestant, Nazis who played a role in the Holocaust. Yet, the Catholic Church never excommunicated any of them including Hitler. Yet, the Catholic Church, as well as Protestant churches, strongly denounced Marxism. At the same time, they embraced fascism in Italy, Germany, Spain, and Austria.
As for Protestant leaders, they believed Nazism, and Hitler, were a necessary antidote to modernism [it's more than interesting how many U.S. conservatives denounce modernism]. Writing of these Protestants, Robert P. Erickson, in his "Theologians under Hitler," wrote that Protestant leaders encouraged German Protestants to feel "responsible before God to assist the work of the Fuhrer" and supporting the Nazis in "all things" was a "God directed call."
However, as the article noted, "...the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, 'Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?' As perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility."
Thus, any claim that Hitler was a leftist is more than absurd; it's an outrageous lie. In fact, Hitler's beliefs were strongly far right and conservative in that he came to power through support from German corporations and those corporations then assisted the Nazis in many ways including manufacturing military weapons and devising methods to murder Jews, he used religious language to promote his warmongering and anti-Jewish bigotry, he used divisive language to turn German against German and especially to turn ordinary Germans against Jews, he used racist laws and language to segregate and dehumanize Jews and other groups, he was strongly nationalistic, he hated communism and social democracy while ignoring the differences between the two, he used lies to advance the cause of war, and he was anti-union.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Sources (as noted)
Endnotes:
1. William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), p. 263.
2. Ibid., p. 143.
3. Ibid., p. 264.
4. Hitler, quoted in Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1971), p. 228.
5. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. by Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), pp. 393-4.
6. Ibid., p. 398.
7. Ibid., p. 297.
8. Ibid., p. 298.
9. Ibid., p. 290.
10. Ibid., pp. 291-2.
11. Ibid., p. 291.
12. Ibid., p. 401.
13. Ibid., p. 402.
14. Ibid., p. 214.
15. Ibid., p. 405.
16. Ibid., p. 404.
17. Ibid., p. 449.
18. Ibid., p. 289.
19. Ibid., p. 516-17.
20. Quoted in Bullock, pp. 11-12.
21. Ibid., p. 230.
22. Hitler, p. 396.
23. Ibid., p. 627.
24. Ibid., p. 288.
25. Ibid., p. 344.
26. Ibid., p. 465.
27. Ibid., p. 81.
28. Ibid., p. 82.
29. Ibid., p. 449.
30. Ibid., p. 60.
31. Ibid., p. 78
32. Ibid., p. 51.
33. Bullock, p. 228-9.
34. Hitler, p. 535.
35. Ibid., p. 155.
36. Quoted in Bullock, p. 102.
37. Hitler, p. 376.
38. Ibid., p. 382.
39. Ibid., p. 65.
40. Ibid., p. 437.
41. Ibid., p. 299.
42. Ibid., p. 338.
43. Ibid., p. 340.
44. Ibid., p. 340.
45. Ibid., p. 284.
46. Ibid., p. 351.
47. The History Place, "The Rise of Adolf Hitler: Success and a Suicide," http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/success.htm
48. Hitler, p. 418.
49. Ibid., p. 429.
50. Ibid., p. 408.
51. Ibid., p. 408.
52. Ibid., p. 346.
53. Ibid., p. 459.
54. Ibid., p. 267.
55. Ibid., p. 116.
56. Ibid., p. 116.
57. Ibid., p. 268.
58. Ibid., p. 563.
59. Bullock, p. 35.
60. Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (London and New York) 1964, p. 50ff.
61. Friedrich Heer, God's First Love (New York: Weybright and Talley, 1967), p. 320, citing Lewy, pp. 249-250; see also Falconi, Carlo, Il silenzio di Pio XII (Milan) 1965.
62. Heer, p. 319.
63. Lewy, p. 57 ff.
64. Ibid., p. 94 ff.
65. Ibid., p. 100f.
66. Ibid., p. 105.
67. Heer, p. 310.
68. Heer, p. 110.
69. Giovannetti, A., Der Vatikan und der Krieg (Cologne) 1961.
70. Lewy, p. 304.
71. Robert P. Erickson, Theologians under Hitler (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 84-87, 143.
72. Michael Parenti, God and His Demons (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2010), pp. 60-62
Health Care Reform Is Constitutional
When reactionary conservatives oppose health care reform and cry "Tenth Amendment...Tenth Amendment...Tenth Amendment..." or "states' rights...states' rights...states' rights..." I suspect 99.9% of them don't understand they're using a long discredited doctrine that "posits that the effect of Supreme Court decisions or other 'encroachment' by the federal government may validly be blocked by the 'interposition' of a viable state right." I further doubt their favorite talk radio hatemonger has explained it to them! Interposition has "no tangible support in modern American law."
In the 1950s and 1960s, interposition was used by racist, conservative southern politicians as a legal justification for blocking federal civil rights initiatives and Supreme Court decisions related to civil rights. The most stark and disturbing images of racist, conservative southern politicians attempting to use this discredited doctrine are those showing George Wallace blocking a school house door to prevent the entry of black students. Today, the same type of reactionary conservatives are attempting to block access to health care for millions of Americans who currently have no health care.
Regarding chances of killing health care reform by the discredited doctrine of interposition, I suspect the chances are very slim. Why? For one, as the sources state, the United States Supreme Court has NEVER ruled the interposition doctrine is valid or permissible. All the justices, including the conservative justices, understand that permitting the use of interposition would destroy the authority of the Court and undermine Marbury v. Madison. This is why lawsuits, filed by reactionary Attorneys General, will fail.
Let's examine three of the arguments used by reactionary conservative opponents of health care reform. I'll use excerpts from the sources that refute the claims.
Claim 1: "Congress is infringing on the power of the states." (Here, again, we see the discredited doctrine of interposition.) It's amusing to watch health care reform opponents use the federalism argument. In reality, those who supported health care reform are the true supporters of federalism because we understand the importance of, as one source describes it (see Shapiro), "The health care plans build on the interaction of state and federal power that is central to federalism." Shapiro further states, "Critics of health care reform brandish federalism as a weapon to undermine democracy, to invite judges to control policy debates. But contrary to their claims, federalism serves to empower citizens, not judges."
Claim 2: "It's unconstitutional."
Wrong!
The Constitution gives Congress the authority "'lay and collect taxes" and "regulate commerce among the several states." I doubt any right wing hate radio host understands the concept of "substantial effect." As noted in the sources I cite below, "substantial effect" is a concept related to activities that have, for example, a tremendous impact on the economy. Without doubt, health care does have a "substantial effect" on the U.S. economy and therein is the problem for opponents of health care reform because, for decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that activities which have a "substantial effect" can be regulated.
Claim 2: "Mandating the purchase of health care, or be fined, is unconstitutional."
During the health care debate, Ken Klukowski wrote an article, published at POLITICO, in which he argued against the health care mandate. In the article, he stated, "people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there’s no interstate commerce."
As noted in the sources, Klukowski's argument has serious flaws.
"The court has said that Congress can use its commerce power to forbid hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race, even though their conduct was refusing to engage in commercial activity. Likewise, the court has said that Congress can regulate the growing of marijuana for personal medicinal use, even if the person being punished never engaged in any commercial activity. "Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that, taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. People
not purchasing health insurance unquestionably has this effect."
"Congress also could justify this as an exercise of its taxing and spending power. Congress can require the purchase of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to Social Security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has accorded Congress broad powers to tax and spend for the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine this."
Claim 3: "Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance violates individual liberty."
Reactionary conservatives become extreme hypocrites when they attempt to use this argument because they're the same reactionaries who oppose liberty for women in making reproductive choices and they oppose equality and liberty for gays and lesbians. However, to address their flawed claim as cited above:
"Nor is there any basis for arguing that an insurance requirement violates individual liberties. No constitutionally protected freedom is infringed. There is no right to not have insurance. Most states now require automobile insurance as a condition for driving.
"Since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a tax cannot be challenged as an impermissible take of private property for public use without just compensation. All taxes are a taking of private property for public use, but no tax has ever been invalidated on that basis."
"Those who object to the health care proposals on constitutional grounds are making an argument that has no basis in the law."
In summary, reactionary conservatives have no legal footing on which to base their claims that Congress has no authority to enact health care reform or that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority, especially in matters that have a "substantial effect" on the economy. Congress has the authority to levy taxes, and there no valid argument against a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. Finally, the use of the discredited doctrine of interposition, used in 1950s and 1960s by conservative, southern racists, is an indication of how desperate and low conservatives have sunk into the abyss of reactionary politics.
http://www.acslaw.org/node/15619
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/federalism-is-no-bar-182808.html
In the 1950s and 1960s, interposition was used by racist, conservative southern politicians as a legal justification for blocking federal civil rights initiatives and Supreme Court decisions related to civil rights. The most stark and disturbing images of racist, conservative southern politicians attempting to use this discredited doctrine are those showing George Wallace blocking a school house door to prevent the entry of black students. Today, the same type of reactionary conservatives are attempting to block access to health care for millions of Americans who currently have no health care.
Regarding chances of killing health care reform by the discredited doctrine of interposition, I suspect the chances are very slim. Why? For one, as the sources state, the United States Supreme Court has NEVER ruled the interposition doctrine is valid or permissible. All the justices, including the conservative justices, understand that permitting the use of interposition would destroy the authority of the Court and undermine Marbury v. Madison. This is why lawsuits, filed by reactionary Attorneys General, will fail.
Let's examine three of the arguments used by reactionary conservative opponents of health care reform. I'll use excerpts from the sources that refute the claims.
Claim 1: "Congress is infringing on the power of the states." (Here, again, we see the discredited doctrine of interposition.) It's amusing to watch health care reform opponents use the federalism argument. In reality, those who supported health care reform are the true supporters of federalism because we understand the importance of, as one source describes it (see Shapiro), "The health care plans build on the interaction of state and federal power that is central to federalism." Shapiro further states, "Critics of health care reform brandish federalism as a weapon to undermine democracy, to invite judges to control policy debates. But contrary to their claims, federalism serves to empower citizens, not judges."
Claim 2: "It's unconstitutional."
Wrong!
The Constitution gives Congress the authority "'lay and collect taxes" and "regulate commerce among the several states." I doubt any right wing hate radio host understands the concept of "substantial effect." As noted in the sources I cite below, "substantial effect" is a concept related to activities that have, for example, a tremendous impact on the economy. Without doubt, health care does have a "substantial effect" on the U.S. economy and therein is the problem for opponents of health care reform because, for decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that activities which have a "substantial effect" can be regulated.
Claim 2: "Mandating the purchase of health care, or be fined, is unconstitutional."
During the health care debate, Ken Klukowski wrote an article, published at POLITICO, in which he argued against the health care mandate. In the article, he stated, "people who declined to purchase government-mandated insurance would not be engaging in commercial activity, so there’s no interstate commerce."
As noted in the sources, Klukowski's argument has serious flaws.
"The court has said that Congress can use its commerce power to forbid hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race, even though their conduct was refusing to engage in commercial activity. Likewise, the court has said that Congress can regulate the growing of marijuana for personal medicinal use, even if the person being punished never engaged in any commercial activity. "Under an unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years, Congress has the power to regulate activities that, taken cumulatively, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. People
not purchasing health insurance unquestionably has this effect."
"Congress also could justify this as an exercise of its taxing and spending power. Congress can require the purchase of health insurance and then tax those who do not do so in order to pay their costs to the system. This is similar to Social Security taxes, which everyone pays to cover the costs of the Social Security system. Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has accorded Congress broad powers to tax and spend for the general welfare and has left it to Congress to determine this."
Claim 3: "Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance violates individual liberty."
Reactionary conservatives become extreme hypocrites when they attempt to use this argument because they're the same reactionaries who oppose liberty for women in making reproductive choices and they oppose equality and liberty for gays and lesbians. However, to address their flawed claim as cited above:
"Nor is there any basis for arguing that an insurance requirement violates individual liberties. No constitutionally protected freedom is infringed. There is no right to not have insurance. Most states now require automobile insurance as a condition for driving.
"Since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a tax cannot be challenged as an impermissible take of private property for public use without just compensation. All taxes are a taking of private property for public use, but no tax has ever been invalidated on that basis."
"Those who object to the health care proposals on constitutional grounds are making an argument that has no basis in the law."
In summary, reactionary conservatives have no legal footing on which to base their claims that Congress has no authority to enact health care reform or that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority, especially in matters that have a "substantial effect" on the economy. Congress has the authority to levy taxes, and there no valid argument against a mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. Finally, the use of the discredited doctrine of interposition, used in 1950s and 1960s by conservative, southern racists, is an indication of how desperate and low conservatives have sunk into the abyss of reactionary politics.
http://www.acslaw.org/node/15619
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28620.html
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Lazarus%20Issue%20Brief%20Final.pdf
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/federalism-is-no-bar-182808.html
Blind Obedience Is Not Patriotic
Originally written in 2002 and as relevant today as it was four years ago, an updated version of the article was prompted by my foray into political message boards dominated by neoconservatives, fascists, Christian jihadists, and political ideologues whose allegiance to George W. Bush is reminiscent of Germans who vowed allegiance to Adolf Hitler. Any criticism of Bush is deemed anti-American and dissent is deemed treasonous. Increasingly, the Bush Administration, the political ideologues who vow allegiance to Bush, and Bush supporters in the corporate-owned media display an open hostility against those who raise legitimate criticisms of Bush. This “circle the wagons” or “bunker mentality” indicates the ruling party views American citizens as enemies to be controlled through illegal wiretapping and more powers to the police state in the form of the Patriot Act.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison while representing Virginia in the United States Congress (1789-1797)
----------
It was the old Nazi, Hermann Göring, who said, "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." When reminded the people in a democratic country, like the United States, have some influence on the matter through elected leaders and only the United States Congress can declare war, Göring replied, "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Today, little effort is required to find similarities between the United States of 2006 and Germany of the 1930s. With a court-installed leader, two elections with numerous instances of voting fraud by the ruling party, and a compliant Congress using meaningless nationalistic slogans, the American people receive either too little information, half-truths or, in some cases, outright lies. Disturbingly, Americans seem all the more willing to blindly follow on a road of never ending war, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran, that in addition to slaughtering innocent people is destroying the very foundations of American democracy.
Any serious study of Nazi Germany reveals a German populace that became, in many instances, willing travelers on a road of violence eventually leading to the arrest, detention, torture, and mass murder of countless millions. In an eerie resemblance to Nazi Germany, millions of Americans, right-wing politicians, extremist talk radio hosts, and other hooligans of the far right, advocate the arrest and detention of Muslims for unspecified periods of time as well as supporting the torture of those arrested. In a society where those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, large numbers of Americans appear willing to throw out this sound legal principle for political expediency with little regard for the consequences. If we permit the state to ignore the constitutional liberties of Muslims or permit the torture of Muslim prisoners, how long will it be before these policies are extended to other groups such as African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, homosexuals, antiwar protesters, members of the clergy, or those with dissident political views? Where does it end?
During the Nazi-era in Germany, Pastor Martin Niemöller, who initially supported Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, addressed his moral failure when he wrote, "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." Today, who has the courage to speak out against the all-out assault on our civil liberties?
If we are to achieve the stated goals of the “global war against terrorism”, punishing and/or killing terrorists and protecting American citizens, we could better achieve these goals by insisting our government adhere to the democratic principles that made the United States a great nation. Additionally, we must insist our government institute economic, foreign, and social policies to make the world a more equitable place. Working to end racism, sexism, ending discrimination against gays and lesbians, and eliminating the tremendous disparity between rich and poor will go a long way toward eliminating the root causes of terrorism. Rather than waving little flags and blindly following, we can begin a serious dialogue to eliminate these evils. Only then will we achieve peace.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison while representing Virginia in the United States Congress (1789-1797)
----------
It was the old Nazi, Hermann Göring, who said, "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." When reminded the people in a democratic country, like the United States, have some influence on the matter through elected leaders and only the United States Congress can declare war, Göring replied, "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Today, little effort is required to find similarities between the United States of 2006 and Germany of the 1930s. With a court-installed leader, two elections with numerous instances of voting fraud by the ruling party, and a compliant Congress using meaningless nationalistic slogans, the American people receive either too little information, half-truths or, in some cases, outright lies. Disturbingly, Americans seem all the more willing to blindly follow on a road of never ending war, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran, that in addition to slaughtering innocent people is destroying the very foundations of American democracy.
Any serious study of Nazi Germany reveals a German populace that became, in many instances, willing travelers on a road of violence eventually leading to the arrest, detention, torture, and mass murder of countless millions. In an eerie resemblance to Nazi Germany, millions of Americans, right-wing politicians, extremist talk radio hosts, and other hooligans of the far right, advocate the arrest and detention of Muslims for unspecified periods of time as well as supporting the torture of those arrested. In a society where those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, large numbers of Americans appear willing to throw out this sound legal principle for political expediency with little regard for the consequences. If we permit the state to ignore the constitutional liberties of Muslims or permit the torture of Muslim prisoners, how long will it be before these policies are extended to other groups such as African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, homosexuals, antiwar protesters, members of the clergy, or those with dissident political views? Where does it end?
During the Nazi-era in Germany, Pastor Martin Niemöller, who initially supported Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, addressed his moral failure when he wrote, "In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me -- and by that time there was nobody left to speak up." Today, who has the courage to speak out against the all-out assault on our civil liberties?
If we are to achieve the stated goals of the “global war against terrorism”, punishing and/or killing terrorists and protecting American citizens, we could better achieve these goals by insisting our government adhere to the democratic principles that made the United States a great nation. Additionally, we must insist our government institute economic, foreign, and social policies to make the world a more equitable place. Working to end racism, sexism, ending discrimination against gays and lesbians, and eliminating the tremendous disparity between rich and poor will go a long way toward eliminating the root causes of terrorism. Rather than waving little flags and blindly following, we can begin a serious dialogue to eliminate these evils. Only then will we achieve peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)