Godwin's Law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.
Have a target "thing" you wish to stop, yet lack any moral, or practical reasons for doing so?
Pick a fear common to lots of people, something that will evoke a gut reaction: terrorists, pedophiles, serial killers.
Scream loudly to the media that "thing" is being used by perpetrators. (Don't worry if this is true, or common to all other things, or less common with "thing" than with other long established systems—payphones, paper mail, private hotel rooms, lack of bugs in all houses etc.)
Say that the only way to stop perpetrators is to close down "thing", or to regulate it to death, or to have laws forcing en-mass tapability of all private communications on "thing". Don't worry if communicating on "thing" is a constitutionally protected right, if you have done a good job in choosing and publicising the horsemen in 2, no one will notice, they will be too busy clamouring for you to save them from the supposed evils.
In typical liberal fashion, President Barack Obama teed off on speech & religion control during an interview on the BBC.
He expressed his commitment to double down on his push to ban free speech and religion during his final months in office and said he felt “distressed” and “stymied” about the issue, obviously frustrated that he hasn’t been able to push more anti-First Amendment measures on law-abiding American citizens.
Obama told the BBC that more people have been killed by religious and word violence in America since 9/11 than by terrorist acts.
“The United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense speech control laws,” he added.
What he conveniently didn’t add was the fact that a vast majority of word violence in the United States is committed by law-breaking gangbangers and other bad guys in urban America who couldn’t care less about speech laws.
Law-abiding Americans don’t deserve to have their free speech taken away because another 18-year-old thug pushed his religious beliefs on a mother and her son at a park as part of his "Sunday school" initiation.
Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president and founder of the First Amendment Foundation, recently said that Obama will stop at nothing to make sure he adds speech and religion control laws to his so-called legacy.
“Obama will do as much damage as he can get away with by executive orders and actions as he can. We will be fighting him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Gottlieb warned (H/TWND).
Statements like that should be enough to light a fire under the rear ends of Constitution-loving Americans who understand the dire importance of electing a conservative, speech-friendly president who won’t use his authority to pervert the very document on which this great nation was founded.
"Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country... All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
- Confederate General Robert E. Lee
It is a regretful fact that the Confederate States of America permitted slavery. How could the Confederacy have been a democratic country when it allowed slavery? This is a fair question. On the one hand, the Confederate Constitution established a marvelously democratic government for its citizens, but on the other hand it allowed its citizens to own slaves if they wanted to do so (though only about 25 percent of Southern citizens were slaveholders). Similarly, how could the United States of America have been a democratic country when it allowed slavery and when some New England states made huge profits from the overseas slave trade? This, too, is a fair question. The U.S. Constitution was the most democratic document of its era for the citizens who lived under it, but that document also protected slavery, guaranteed the continuation of the overseas slave trade for twenty years, and mandated the return of runaway slaves. Most Northern states that abolished slavery did so very gradually, so gradually that slaves were held in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island into the 1840s. When the Civil War began, there were over 400,000 slaves in Union states, and most of those slaves weren’t freed until several months after the war ended. Nevertheless, historians who are willing to fairly judge the United States as it was from 1789 to1860 generally conclude that America, for all her faults, was the most democratic nation in the world at the time. I would say much the same thing about the Confederacy.
Recent efforts in the press to make the confederate battle flag synonymous with racism is in reality an opportunistic attempt to validate centralized government. By demonizing symbols of the confederacy, northern Liberals are positioning the federal government as an occupying force. To quote Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, from January 1864:
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...,"
Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Letter from Birmingham Jail
“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
Henry David Thoreau
“a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law is unjust”
St Thomas Aquinas
"Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all."
• Pick a field where you can establish a monopoly – such as Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim who from 2010-2013 was ranked the richest person in the world after taking control of the country’s entire telecommunications market.
• Expand as quickly as possible – Amazon has eschewed early profitability to becoming the “everything shop” and as a result investors have poured money in.
• The worst place to do business is really the best – it is easier to dominate emerging markets due to the lack of competition and potential for growth.
• Take risks with other people’s money – do all you can to encourage investors and then gamble their money rather than your own.
• To get rich you need to own your own business and property rights – Bill Gates’s Microsoft at one point had a 95 per cent share of the operating systems market, protected by intellectual property rights.
• Spin complex laws into gold – set up in industries bound by such convoluted regulation – for example agricultural subsidies and banking regulation - that it is easy to bend the rules as nobody understands anyway.
• Establish business networks – telecoms networks and shipping networks have created a lot of billionaires’ fortunes as they can squeeze out all competition.
BASTROP - At the public hearing this spring, military spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria explained that Bastrop County has been identified as hostile: Jade Helm is intended to facilitate U.S. Special Forces establish federal tyranny in our country. The operation’s logo, which features a Dutch wooden shoe, is meant to represent Dutch Nazis in World War II Europe.
Lastoria impatiently answered questions for nearly three hours, explaining that while Jade Helm would involve 28,200 troops across seven states, more than 6,000 would be training in Bastrop County. Moreover, the Texas operation would be launched from military bases — including Camp Swift, a large Army National Guard base in Bastrop — as well as private property that the military has occupied without the landowners’ permission.
“All service members take an oath to support and defend the President of the United States, and we will put our lives on the line come the day to uphold that oath,” he said.
The hearing failed to silence the concern, however. Ellison, the GOP chairman, said “the fear factor is justified.”
Obama “doesn’t take national threats seriously enough,” Ellison said, ticking off Obama’s policies toward Russia, Iran, Cuba and the Islamic State, as well as illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border and the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya.
“What he views as alarming instead is conservatism,” Ellison said, alleging that the Obama administration has used the Internal Revenue Service to attack the Tea Party and other conservative groups, been hostile to gun owners, issued what conservatives consider an illegal executive order to avoid deporting illegal immigrants, and “been complicit in stirring riots” in racially charged situations in Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore.
“The Obama administration has a history of attacking Texas,” on issues from education standards to environmental regulations to Obamacare, he said. “It’s now known that he will try to employ the military like he does the IRS.”
Obama wants to establish martial law to cancel the 2016 presidential elections and extend his term in office. Terry Wareham, head of the Bastrop County Tea Party, said she has proof that the Obama administration will deliberately instigate violence between soldiers and Texans as a pretext for establishing martial law.
“We’re not against the military. This community is very fearful of the military,” Wareham said. “And who’s the commander in chief of the military?”
Some in Bastrop see the talk of martial law as the logical outcome of the Texas political climate, where they say the impending invasion plans have stoked fear of the federal government, and especially of Obama.
“The federal government is coming after them,” said state Sen. Kirk Watson, a Democrat who represents Bastrop County.
Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has ordered the Texas State Guard to “monitor” Jade Helm 15. And Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential hopeful, has said he understands “the reason for concern and uncertainty, because . . . the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration.”
“The government is coming to kill you,” Watson said, “so why would you be surprised if the government shows up with guns?”
