Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Gleichschaltung

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 411 Times in 369 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Gleichschaltung

    NOTE: Supreme Court justices do not swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. There is a lot of wiggle room in the oath(s) they do take:

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post4297779


    October 1936: Berlin judges swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler saying, “I swear I will be true and obedient to the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, observe the law, and conscientiously fulfill the duties of my office, so help me God.”

    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...94?s=2048x2048

    Our judges did not say the words; nevertheless they practice gleichschaltung — “synchronization, as in coordination between the legal professionals and their Leader.” [JOE BIDEN]
    Lawlessness is a state of disorder due to disregard of the law.

    That is an incomplete definition. For it neither takes into consideration the nature of the law disregarded, nor the vigor with which an unjust law is sometimes enforced.

    Bad law, vigorously enforced, moves a nation toward tyranny.

    Good law, negligently ignored, destroys respect for the law.

    Very bad laws ruled Nazi Germany between 1933-1945.

    Few German lawyers and judges foresaw what was ahead

    Between 23 September 23rd - October 4th 1930, Adolf Hitler was the sole witness to testify before the German Supreme Court about whether the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP; AKA: Nazis) intended to attempt an overthrow of the government. The Court accepted Hitler’s two-hour denial as an “Oath of Purification”.

    Adolf verbally baptized himself in the Innocence River.

    Then, a year later, a Social Democratic Party document cited 1,184 cases of Nazi violence which killed 62 persons and injured 3,209, plus made 26 attacks on trade union headquarters, and desecrated many cemeteries.

    The German Supreme Court did not realize that: “The support and preferred treatment accorded accused criminals who had acted from ‘nationalist’ motives had disastrous political consequences, for they encouraged the radical right and undermined the confidence of the supporters of democracy.

    NOTE: Undermining democracy is always a good thing. Neither German courts, nor our courts know how to do it without Nazi brutality.


    However, the erosion of the law itself proved to have even more serious consequences.” (”Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich,” Ingo Muller, ©1991, p. 21.)

    Few German lawyers and judges foresaw what was ahead.

    When the “more serious consequences” began to unfold after the Nazis took complete control of Germany in 1933, the German legal community generally welcomed those consequences.

    ““Irrespective of private misgivings, the German legal profession, above all the judges, had fully succumbed to the power of corruption, not in the material but in the ethical sense.” (“In the Name of the Folk: Political Justice in Hitler’s Germany,” H.W. Koch, ©1989, p.119.)

    In October 1933, during the first national convention of jurists in Leipzig, 10,000 lawyers raised their right arms in the Nazi salute swearing, “by the soul of the German people” to “strive as German jurists, to follow the course of our Fuhrer, to the end of our days”. (Muller, p. 38.)

    Germany legal profession surrendered to Adolf Hitler

    So, the Germany legal profession surrendered to Adolf Hitler. The word was gleichschaltung – synchronization, as in coordination between the legal professionals and their Leader. In perfect sync with each other.

    “[N]either the president of the Supreme Court nor the celebrated constitutional scholar (referring to Carl Schmitt) was exceptional in sympathizing with the Nazis. On the contrary, they were quite representative of the rank and file of less prominent judges, public prosecutors, law professors, and – to a lesser extent – attorneys.” (Muller, p. 45.)

    By July 1933, all political parties, except the NSDAP, were banned. Genuine elections were no longer needed.

    “There can be no doubt about it: despite considerable unease, the representatives of the German legal system, and in particular the judges, bowed to the dictates of the National Socialist regime – at the very least, it can be said that there was no significant criticism.” (“Hitler’s Executioner: Judge, jury and Mass Murderer for the Nazis,” by Helmut Ortner, ©2018, p.63.)

    The men in black robes marched in lock-step with the Fuhrer.

    “[T]he first and foremost task of the judiciary was to subordinate itself to the totalitarian will of National Socialism. (Koch, pp. 84.)

    On 24 April 1934, the Peoples’ Court (Volksgerichtshof; AKA: VGH) was formally founded.

    The National Socialist state created the Peoples’ Court to embody the basic concepts of law as practiced by National Socialism

    On 15 July 1934, the Volkischer Beobachter (AKA: Popular Observer, VB), the Nazi daily newspaper, stated the court’s mission: “Anyone who turns against the political unity of the National Socialist state today will be judged by this court. The disastrous trial of the Reichstag arsonists [more on that later] is still fresh in our memory. Despite the blatantly political motivation behind the crime, it dragged on for months, delayed by politically inexperienced judges who, in order to reach an ‘objective judgement,’ again and again called for fresh testimony from experts, questioned countless witnesses and nevertheless produced a miscarriage of justice. This in particular makes the need for politically trained judges obvious.”

    “Historically speaking, the Volksgerichtshof, which convenes for the first time today and is intended to be a permanent institution, therefore represents something completely new [not exactly true] within the German legal system. It marks the end of an inglorious chapter in the history of German justice, an era in which politically and criminologically insensitive German legal authorities were so intent on objectivity and loyal to the constitution that they were unable or unwilling to see what was happening around them.” (Ortner, p. 5.)

    Elsewhere, the VB’s Editor-in-Chief, Wilhelm Weiss, described the new court’s mission. Here is a summary of his very long statement:

    After seizing power, the Nazis created a special court for the most serious political crimes. Before 30 January 1933, treason was the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which reflected the general “political and spiritual basic attitude” typical of the Weimar Republic. Supreme Court trials often led to parliamentary confrontations and press efforts to protect those guilty of treason. The result was “legal uncertainty” meaning that a state could not be protected by “the letter of the law” if the law “is not in accord with a clear political idea.” The National Socialist state created the Peoples’ Court to embody the basic concepts of law as practiced by National Socialism. (paraphrased from Koch, p. 45.)

    Justice in Germany was no longer about written law, but about the will of the Fuhrer

    Justice in Germany was no longer about written law, but about the will of the Fuhrer. For he is the law.

    “In Germany after 1933 law became preventive law. It often struck before it had been broken. It then no longer took account of the personality of the accused or his or her human and personal requirements. It struck blindly…After 1939, the liberal traditions of the German judiciary were largely abandoned, on the justification of a superficial reference to the emergencies of war, to make way for the extensive use of ‘preventive detention,’ the collective identification of groups as ‘criminals’ such as Jews, gypsies, and other minorities, and the complete hopelessness of the case of any individual caught up in the machinery of what was called the law.” (Koch, pp. 49f.)

    Meanwhile, Germany’s lawyers became civil service workers.

    Roland Freisler
    https://canadafreepress.com/images/u...ary050221b.jpg

    Roland Freisler (pictured left, in his robe) – the highest-ranking Nazi judge in the Peoples’ Court – was eager to hand out death sentences. Executions rose from 32 in 1937 to 2,097 in 1944. Total executions eventually reached 5,191. Disparaging comments, even in private conversations, concerning Hitler, Germany or the war merited death. It was the Nazis’ version of “hate speech”.

    Freisler’s predecessor as President of the Peoples’ Court was Otto Thierack (seen below, bald head, cheek scar). Years later, after being appointed Minister of Justice, President of the Academy for German Law and Leader of the National Association of German Legal Professions, Otto occasionally distributed “Judges’ Letters” (Richterbriefe) to keep Nazi judges updated on National Socialism’s legal principles.

    Leader of the nation was always its supreme judge

    Court was Otto Thierack
    https://canadafreepress.com/images/u...ary050221a.jpg

    These were among Thierack’s statements to “German Judges!” in his first such letter issued on 1 October 1942:

    “According to the ancient Germanic interpretation of the law, the leader of the nation was always its supreme judge. Therefore, when the leader of the nation invests another person with the authority of a judge, this means not only that the latter derives his judicial power from the leader and is responsible to him, but also that leadership and judgeship are related in character…A corps of judges like this will not cling slavishly to the letter of the law. It will not anxiously search for support in the law, but with satisfaction in its responsibility, will find within the bounds of the law the decision which is best for the life of the community.” (Ortner, pp. 69f.)

    Thierack’s advice to his successor, Freisler, as in-coming VGH President, was that “the judge of the VGH must become accustomed to seeing primarily the ideas and intentions of the leadership of the state, while the human fate which depends on it is only secondary…The accused before the VGH are only little figures in a much greater circle…which fights the Reich.” (Koch, p. 6.)

    On 26 October 1946, Otto Thierack (above) hanged himself before he was scheduled to face trial at Nuremberg.

    See number 2 permalink in this thread:


    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...48#post3201848


    On 3 February 1945, Roland Freisler (above) is believed to have been on the lethal receiving end of part of the 3,000 tons of explosives dropped on Berlin by allied bombers that day.


    Lawlessness can coexist, even thrive, with laws, lawyers, judges and courts
    By Lee Cary
    May 2, 2021

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...ges-and-courts

    Finally, Democrats accuse everybody and every thought they fear of racism or fascism. I suspect that the charge of fascism will last a longer than racism.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    36,623
    Thanks
    11,773
    Thanked 7,680 Times in 6,273 Posts
    Groans
    421
    Groaned 1,476 Times in 1,419 Posts

    Default

    This is the best Godwin's law thread I have ever seen. HEH.
    THAT IS AN ASTUTE OBSERVATION I EXPECT FROM YOU.
    Yo so ugly yo momma tied meats around your neck so you can pet the dogs but it turned the dogs into liberal veggies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Science does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    guno (05-03-2021), ThatOwlWoman (05-02-2021)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    17,440
    Thanks
    20,549
    Thanked 6,508 Times in 4,682 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 2,051 Times in 1,937 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    NOTE: Supreme Court justices do not swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. There is a lot of wiggle room in the oath(s) they do take:

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...79#post4297779


    October 1936: Berlin judges swear allegiance to Adolf Hitler saying, “I swear I will be true and obedient to the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, observe the law, and conscientiously fulfill the duties of my office, so help me God.”

    https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...94?s=2048x2048

    Our judges did not say the words; nevertheless they practice gleichschaltung — “synchronization, as in coordination between the legal professionals and their Leader.” [JOE BIDEN]
    Lawlessness is a state of disorder due to disregard of the law.

    That is an incomplete definition. For it neither takes into consideration the nature of the law disregarded, nor the vigor with which an unjust law is sometimes enforced.

    Bad law, vigorously enforced, moves a nation toward tyranny.

    Good law, negligently ignored, destroys respect for the law.

    Very bad laws ruled Nazi Germany between 1933-1945.

    Few German lawyers and judges foresaw what was ahead

    Between 23 September 23rd - October 4th 1930, Adolf Hitler was the sole witness to testify before the German Supreme Court about whether the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP; AKA: Nazis) intended to attempt an overthrow of the government. The Court accepted Hitler’s two-hour denial as an “Oath of Purification”.

    Adolf verbally baptized himself in the Innocence River.

    Then, a year later, a Social Democratic Party document cited 1,184 cases of Nazi violence which killed 62 persons and injured 3,209, plus made 26 attacks on trade union headquarters, and desecrated many cemeteries.

    The German Supreme Court did not realize that: “The support and preferred treatment accorded accused criminals who had acted from ‘nationalist’ motives had disastrous political consequences, for they encouraged the radical right and undermined the confidence of the supporters of democracy.

    NOTE: Undermining democracy is always a good thing. Neither German courts, nor our courts know how to do it without Nazi brutality.


    However, the erosion of the law itself proved to have even more serious consequences.” (”Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich,” Ingo Muller, ©1991, p. 21.)

    Few German lawyers and judges foresaw what was ahead.

    When the “more serious consequences” began to unfold after the Nazis took complete control of Germany in 1933, the German legal community generally welcomed those consequences.

    ““Irrespective of private misgivings, the German legal profession, above all the judges, had fully succumbed to the power of corruption, not in the material but in the ethical sense.” (“In the Name of the Folk: Political Justice in Hitler’s Germany,” H.W. Koch, ©1989, p.119.)

    In October 1933, during the first national convention of jurists in Leipzig, 10,000 lawyers raised their right arms in the Nazi salute swearing, “by the soul of the German people” to “strive as German jurists, to follow the course of our Fuhrer, to the end of our days”. (Muller, p. 38.)

    Germany legal profession surrendered to Adolf Hitler

    So, the Germany legal profession surrendered to Adolf Hitler. The word was gleichschaltung – synchronization, as in coordination between the legal professionals and their Leader. In perfect sync with each other.

    “[N]either the president of the Supreme Court nor the celebrated constitutional scholar (referring to Carl Schmitt) was exceptional in sympathizing with the Nazis. On the contrary, they were quite representative of the rank and file of less prominent judges, public prosecutors, law professors, and – to a lesser extent – attorneys.” (Muller, p. 45.)

    By July 1933, all political parties, except the NSDAP, were banned. Genuine elections were no longer needed.

    “There can be no doubt about it: despite considerable unease, the representatives of the German legal system, and in particular the judges, bowed to the dictates of the National Socialist regime – at the very least, it can be said that there was no significant criticism.” (“Hitler’s Executioner: Judge, jury and Mass Murderer for the Nazis,” by Helmut Ortner, ©2018, p.63.)

    The men in black robes marched in lock-step with the Fuhrer.

    “[T]he first and foremost task of the judiciary was to subordinate itself to the totalitarian will of National Socialism. (Koch, pp. 84.)

    On 24 April 1934, the Peoples’ Court (Volksgerichtshof; AKA: VGH) was formally founded.

    The National Socialist state created the Peoples’ Court to embody the basic concepts of law as practiced by National Socialism

    On 15 July 1934, the Volkischer Beobachter (AKA: Popular Observer, VB), the Nazi daily newspaper, stated the court’s mission: “Anyone who turns against the political unity of the National Socialist state today will be judged by this court. The disastrous trial of the Reichstag arsonists [more on that later] is still fresh in our memory. Despite the blatantly political motivation behind the crime, it dragged on for months, delayed by politically inexperienced judges who, in order to reach an ‘objective judgement,’ again and again called for fresh testimony from experts, questioned countless witnesses and nevertheless produced a miscarriage of justice. This in particular makes the need for politically trained judges obvious.”

    “Historically speaking, the Volksgerichtshof, which convenes for the first time today and is intended to be a permanent institution, therefore represents something completely new [not exactly true] within the German legal system. It marks the end of an inglorious chapter in the history of German justice, an era in which politically and criminologically insensitive German legal authorities were so intent on objectivity and loyal to the constitution that they were unable or unwilling to see what was happening around them.” (Ortner, p. 5.)

    Elsewhere, the VB’s Editor-in-Chief, Wilhelm Weiss, described the new court’s mission. Here is a summary of his very long statement:

    After seizing power, the Nazis created a special court for the most serious political crimes. Before 30 January 1933, treason was the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which reflected the general “political and spiritual basic attitude” typical of the Weimar Republic. Supreme Court trials often led to parliamentary confrontations and press efforts to protect those guilty of treason. The result was “legal uncertainty” meaning that a state could not be protected by “the letter of the law” if the law “is not in accord with a clear political idea.” The National Socialist state created the Peoples’ Court to embody the basic concepts of law as practiced by National Socialism. (paraphrased from Koch, p. 45.)

    Justice in Germany was no longer about written law, but about the will of the Fuhrer

    Justice in Germany was no longer about written law, but about the will of the Fuhrer. For he is the law.

    “In Germany after 1933 law became preventive law. It often struck before it had been broken. It then no longer took account of the personality of the accused or his or her human and personal requirements. It struck blindly…After 1939, the liberal traditions of the German judiciary were largely abandoned, on the justification of a superficial reference to the emergencies of war, to make way for the extensive use of ‘preventive detention,’ the collective identification of groups as ‘criminals’ such as Jews, gypsies, and other minorities, and the complete hopelessness of the case of any individual caught up in the machinery of what was called the law.” (Koch, pp. 49f.)

    Meanwhile, Germany’s lawyers became civil service workers.

    Roland Freisler
    https://canadafreepress.com/images/u...ary050221b.jpg

    Roland Freisler (pictured left, in his robe) – the highest-ranking Nazi judge in the Peoples’ Court – was eager to hand out death sentences. Executions rose from 32 in 1937 to 2,097 in 1944. Total executions eventually reached 5,191. Disparaging comments, even in private conversations, concerning Hitler, Germany or the war merited death. It was the Nazis’ version of “hate speech”.

    Freisler’s predecessor as President of the Peoples’ Court was Otto Thierack (seen below, bald head, cheek scar). Years later, after being appointed Minister of Justice, President of the Academy for German Law and Leader of the National Association of German Legal Professions, Otto occasionally distributed “Judges’ Letters” (Richterbriefe) to keep Nazi judges updated on National Socialism’s legal principles.

    Leader of the nation was always its supreme judge

    Court was Otto Thierack
    https://canadafreepress.com/images/u...ary050221a.jpg

    These were among Thierack’s statements to “German Judges!” in his first such letter issued on 1 October 1942:

    “According to the ancient Germanic interpretation of the law, the leader of the nation was always its supreme judge. Therefore, when the leader of the nation invests another person with the authority of a judge, this means not only that the latter derives his judicial power from the leader and is responsible to him, but also that leadership and judgeship are related in character…A corps of judges like this will not cling slavishly to the letter of the law. It will not anxiously search for support in the law, but with satisfaction in its responsibility, will find within the bounds of the law the decision which is best for the life of the community.” (Ortner, pp. 69f.)

    Thierack’s advice to his successor, Freisler, as in-coming VGH President, was that “the judge of the VGH must become accustomed to seeing primarily the ideas and intentions of the leadership of the state, while the human fate which depends on it is only secondary…The accused before the VGH are only little figures in a much greater circle…which fights the Reich.” (Koch, p. 6.)

    On 26 October 1946, Otto Thierack (above) hanged himself before he was scheduled to face trial at Nuremberg.

    See number 2 permalink in this thread:


    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...48#post3201848


    On 3 February 1945, Roland Freisler (above) is believed to have been on the lethal receiving end of part of the 3,000 tons of explosives dropped on Berlin by allied bombers that day.


    Lawlessness can coexist, even thrive, with laws, lawyers, judges and courts
    By Lee Cary
    May 2, 2021

    https://canadafreepress.com/article/...ges-and-courts

    Finally, Democrats accuse everybody and every thought they fear of racism or fascism. I suspect that the charge of fascism will last a longer than racism.
    Justice in USA was no longer about written law, but about the will of the Fuhrer Trump.
    QRP and 73 to everybody

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    7,448
    Thanks
    672
    Thanked 2,938 Times in 2,069 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 444 Times in 421 Posts

    Default

    The diseased orangutan's reign of terror made gleichschaltung from the left's perspective absolutely essential to preserve the republic.
    Long term, I'm still not betting on preservation, however. Long term, partition is inevitable.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
    Person...woman...man...camera...television. Donald Trump, 2020

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 411 Times in 369 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpet View Post
    Justice in USA was no longer about written law, but about the will of the Fuhrer Trump.
    To Trumpet: If that was true Donald Trump would still be president.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    17,440
    Thanks
    20,549
    Thanked 6,508 Times in 4,682 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 2,051 Times in 1,937 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Trumpet: If that was true Donald Trump would still be president.
    He sure tried to take power, after being voted out, where have you been?????????????????
    QRP and 73 to everybody

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Trumpet For This Post:

    guno (05-03-2021)

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 411 Times in 369 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpet View Post
    He sure tried to take power, after being voted out, where have you been?????????????????
    To Trumpet: Where have you been, asshole. The Supreme Court put Biden in office while the SCOTUS —— and Congress —— sanctioned a thief as well as Democrats stealing elections forever. Trump would be in prison had he stole the election.

    Incidentally, a few people like Sydney Powell stood up to corrupt justices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpet View Post
    Justice in USA was no longer about written law, but about the will of the Fuhrer Trump.
    Blaming Trump for the crimes Biden committed came right out of Saul Alinsky’s play book:


    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    17,440
    Thanks
    20,549
    Thanked 6,508 Times in 4,682 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 2,051 Times in 1,937 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Trumpet: Where have you been, asshole. The Supreme Court put Biden in office while the SCOTUS —— and Congress —— sanctioned a thief as well as Democrats stealing elections forever. Trump would be in prison had he stole the election.

    Incidentally, a few people like Sydney Powell stood up to corrupt justices.



    Blaming Trump for the crimes Biden committed came right out of Saul Alinsky’s play book:


    QRP and 73 to everybody

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Trumpet For This Post:

    guno (05-03-2021)

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 411 Times in 369 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpet View Post

    To Trumpet: You enjoyed my previous reply so much this one should crack you up:


    President Trump’s actions define his patriotism, while every time top Democrats wrap themselves in the flag proclaiming how much they love their country I am reminded of my disagreement with Doctor Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784):

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”


    Patriotism is the first refuge of scoundrels because they always wrap themselves in the flag for profit (usually tax dollars) even when there is no imminent danger to their country. Without exception, the flag they despise becomes a national shroud when charlatans succeed in fooling everyone.

    Patriotism is the last recourse of a free people who wish to remain free because they try everything else before calling upon patriotism to defend the nation.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...58#post2925158


    Last week, President Joe Biden said it’s the patriotic duty of Americans to wear masks while outside. Years ago, while campaigning as Barack Obama’s running mate, he said it was patriotic to pay higher taxes. It’s hard to decide if these statements are more akin to the ramblings of a child or are uncomfortably similar to Third World despots who demand obedience from their subordinated citizens.

    Frankly, they’re both. Making a distinction is virtually impossible.

    When we hear Biden try to force his view of patriotism on the country, we think of Woody Allen’s “Bananas,” the 1971 comedy in which a Castro-style revolutionary declares that not only “from this day on,” the official language of the banana republic of San Marcos “will be Swedish,” in addition, “all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check.” It’s about commanding, not persuading.

    NOTE: Dictator Biden cannot stand sniffing shit-stained underwear.


    Biden wakes up every morning in the White House – whether he knows it or not – but that doesn’t give him the authority to define patriotism, nor to expect us to follow without question or dissent.

    We concede that patriotism is not easy to define. We’re familiar with the line that one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot, and we’re quite aware that waving the flag is sometimes nothing more than just creating a light breeze.

    But we also know that George Washington warned us to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism,” and Theodore Roosevelt said “patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.”

    Biden wants to use his version of patriotism as a blunt instrument to forward the agenda of the left, which supports the most unpatriotic ideas imaginable. The left, a retrograde tribe made up of almost every Democratic politician and party official, nearly every member of the media, and most of the entertainment industry, does not believe in freedom outside of special privileges it’s carved out for itself. Respect for, and defense of, freedom should be the most patriotic act of all, considering that this nation was founded to establish an island of liberty in a world controlled by kings, queens, dynasties, emperors, and czars.

    We recall that it was not that many months ago, while Donald Trump was still president, when the left argued that dissent was patriotic. Yet now patriotism to the left means (preferably blind and enthusiastic) compliance with government authority, conformity of thought, sheepishly handing over private resources to politicians, and a wholesale surrender to economic central planners.

    While we’ll leave it to Americans to define patriotism for themselves, we will remind them what it isn’t. It’s not employing the jackboot of the state. It’s not bullying an ostensibly free people into submission. It’s not the erasure of our history nor unrelenting appeals for greater dependence on government.

    And it’s most certainly not whatever sophomoric nonsense that pops out of Joe Biden’s mouth.

    — Written by the I&I Editorial Board


    Who Gets To Define What’s Patriotic?
    By I & I Editorial Board
    May 3, 2021

    https://issuesinsights.com/2021/05/0...ats-patriotic/

    Apparently, nine corrupt justices on the U.S. Supreme Court define patriotism because they elected China Joe Biden!
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    474
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 54 Times in 54 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default I won't put myself through this anymore.


  14. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    36,623
    Thanks
    11,773
    Thanked 7,680 Times in 6,273 Posts
    Groans
    421
    Groaned 1,476 Times in 1,419 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Trumpet: If that was true Donald Trump would still be president.
    Um a lot of people still think he's president.
    THAT IS AN ASTUTE OBSERVATION I EXPECT FROM YOU.
    Yo so ugly yo momma tied meats around your neck so you can pet the dogs but it turned the dogs into liberal veggies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Science does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence.

  15. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    10,462
    Thanks
    731
    Thanked 6,051 Times in 3,676 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,172 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Do you fuckers know ANYTHING?

    “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    Fuck you are a moron.

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,267
    Thanks
    908
    Thanked 411 Times in 369 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 98 Times in 85 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
    To Concart: Asshole. The Parasite Class makes a joke out of that oath, not to mention discriminating against white Americans as well as the SCOTUS refusing to uphold immigration and election laws.

    Incidentally, when did that scum on the Supreme Court ever protect and defend this country’s sovereignty?
    Last edited by Flanders; 05-04-2021 at 02:55 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  17. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    10,462
    Thanks
    731
    Thanked 6,051 Times in 3,676 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 1,172 Times in 1,112 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    To Concart: Asshole. The Parasite Class makes a joke out of that oath, not to mention discriminating against white Americans as well as the SCOTUS refusing to uphold immigration and election laws.

    Incidentally, when did that scum on the Supreme Court ever protect and defend this country’s sovereignty?
    LOL, you just skipped past your lie and went right to the adhoms.

    Cry some more, loser.

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •