[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A Reality Check & the Full Citizenship Campaign

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Jonathan Wienke wrote:

> 1. All guns had to be registered. (much of this work was done by Hitler's
> predecessors, but it made his job much easier.)
> 2. Abortion was made available on demand.
> 3. Euthanasia was made available for the terminally ill, then encouraged
> for the elderly and feeble-minded.
> 4. Privately owned guns were confiscated. Freedom of speech and press was
> curtailed.
> 5. Euthanasia gradually began to be applied to Communists, labor union
> organizers, Jews, homosexuals, religious leaders, and anyone else who
> opposed the government, eventually requiring the death camps to process all
> those requiring euthanizatrion.
> Most Germans didn't wake up to the situation until it was too late. Martin
> Neimoller's quote "...and when they came for me, I couldn't say anything,
> because there was nobody left to speak for me" (paraphrased) is one of the
> most damning indictments of the sheeplike tendencies of most people. At
> this time, we are working on steps 3 and 4 in the US.

Worse, they voted for Hitler (who by the way stopped the "Taxi Murders"),
and the legislature voted him emergency powers.  The NAZIs did everything
by a stricty legal process.

The principle was clear but overridden by pragmatism.  From life is sacred
(or inviolable if you don't like religous connotations) to life not worthy
of life.

There were those speaking for principle then, as now, but the divisive
politics said not to listen to them because a government can provide
Utopia if you will just provide them the power.

Faschism is more dangerous than socialism, since it keeps some kind of
ownership in private hands, but has all the controls - consider Hillary's
healthcare plan - doctors and hospitals would still be privately owned.

PGP and RSA will still own the intellectual property under GAK.

> Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it.

I saw a very ironic session on C-SPAN with the Congressional Black Caucus
sponsoring lecturers on victims of police violence.  A few times the crime
of "Driving while Black" was mentioned.  They mentioned this will get
worse as the states move to primary enforcement of seatbelts, but forgot
to mention that the administration is pushing the initiative (they needed
something since 55 was repealed).  Also mentioned was the war on drugs and
a few of the other invasive federal programs.

My question is why the minorities vote to give police arbitrary powers (or
withold funds from the state if they don't), and expect that the police
won't act arbitrarily and mostly against minorities.

> What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed" is too hard to understand? (From 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution)

Another thing I heard was the move to ban small, inexpensive handguns. 
The type mainly bought by women to protect themselves.  I think it was
something brought forward by Feinstein. 

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---