Author Topic: Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?  (Read 3717 times)

Offline bbell

  • Forum VIP.
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?
« on: February 06, 2013, 09:56:19 AM »
This was originally written in June 2009

Interoffice memo: From the media relations office of the Obama administration. Concerning the soon to be released new detainee documents on Monday.
Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?

The Attorney Generals of the Bush and Obama administrations have codified that any person acting with the legal authority of the state. Can not be held guilty for any thing they do while following orders from a legally elected and lawful government. Especially if that action is against a legally recognized group of people who have terrorist among them. With Manifest Destiny and the Japanese-American imprisonments during WWII being an early prime example of this.

It is a shame that the United States took so long to codify this policy in public. For if it had been done earlier, many find outstanding German citizens would have been spared a most unjust persecution, for just following orders. And of course when the full details of our imprisonments and interrogations(torture) are released on Monday. We would have been spared the cries for the unjust punishment for our men and women who were just following orders.

The revelations of the past few weeks and those soon to be revealed, will prove that the chief accusers of the German government at Nuremberg. The United States of America government, is and always has been a little like the German government of a certain time period. The “is” clearly refers to the actions taken on behalf of todays war on terror. The “has been” refers to the near masterfully eradication of the Native American population with the great slogan of “Manifest Destiny”.

We have learned over the past few months that when you give snazzy obfuscating acronyms to horrible things. It tends to make them seem less horrible, mostly for those who occupy the political right in America's society. Actually for those like Dick Cheney, it makes them seem down right innocuous. With the hope of muting the cries of indecent behavior from the ACLU and the more honorable people in our society. We will use today's political idioms and desensitizing language to blunt the upcoming uproar.

If we could, going forth from this moment, have everyone in the administration and our surrogates refer to the unfortunate events that took place in Germany, by some peoples account, from 1941 to 1945. As J.E.E.P. the Jewish Extremist Eradication Program and the gassing of the Jews as a Modified Enhanced Eradication Technique or M.E.E.T.. It will help to soften the blows of righteous indignation we are sure to receive.

Thanks to the actions of the Bush administration and our administration's tacit and explicit approval of those actions. It is now widely accepted that a lawful government is empowered to do anything and everything necessary to keep its citizenry safe from a group of people who have religious terrorists among them. Just as it should have been accepted over 60 years ago in Nuremberg. Because as it has been articulated by the Former Vice President of the U.S. and many in the Republican party. Fear is the one thing that can mitigate the need for human decency in a civilized world.

On behalf of all of the Germans imprisoned and executed because of accusations made at the Nuremberg trials and for the Americans who will soon be saddled with the same accusations when the reports are released and read on Monday. We have submitted the preceding arguments and strategy for your approval. So that the American people and the world will come to accept that. J.E.E.P. achieved by means of M.E.E.T., should now be considered a rational response to the fear that the religious terrorist, who just happen to be Jewish, caused the German people. Thus anything that we release in the near and far future about our nations actions over the past seven years. Will all seem normal and legal, business as usual, for a nation fighting a war against religious people who have extremist among them, who are terrorists.

By B. Bell

You must forgive them. So many people did not slay the bogey man living under their bed as a child. Thus they feel him everywhere, hence the need to always carry a gun. Living in fear of the bogey man is a heavy burden for people to carry. So sad. 

Offline gitano1

  • Administrator
  • Forum VIP.
  • *****
  • Posts: 11795
Re: Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2013, 12:49:08 PM »
BBELL, you are demented. There is no basis for comparison between what was done by the NAZIs in their deliberate concentration and slaughter of more than 10 million people, Jews, Slavs, Homosexuals, mental deficients, Gypsies and other "inferior" stock. At Nuremberg it was clearly stated that every individual is personally responsible for the actions that the choose to take. Being ordered to act in a manner which is a violation of all moral standards, as the Germans claimed they were, is no excuse for their behavior as individuals. Obama cannot legally order the execution of any American citizen without due process of law. That is the point, clear and simple. He may think he is a king, but in truth he isn't anything but a corrupt, ill-informed demagogue misusing his power and allowing the adoration of a crowd of morons to twist his already questionable judgment into areas that no president has dared to go before. His fall will be epic. And we thought Nixon was a lunatic! ::)
Gitano
"Race has now replaced rule of law officially. In one speech our president has reversed 60 years of healing the racial divide and destroyed the dream of Dr. King. The result will be an exact reversal of the conditions existing before The Civil Rights Act. And the hardest hit will be the children in whose name the left always claims to act. Well done Obama". - Pendark

Offline Pavelow

  • Forum Specialist
  • Forum VIP.
  • ******
  • Posts: 2674
Re: Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2013, 03:53:43 PM »
I think the piece was written during the time many on the Left wanted to prosecute Chaney and many in the Bush Administration for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."  Yet, most of us know that these techniques - water-boarding - were used on only 3 Detainees at Guantanamo.  Water-boarding, although controversial, pails in comparison to Genocide.  So, lets see, 3 water-boards vs 10 million slaughtered.  The comparison is grotesque in the extreme.  The Left have always been remiss to call out that it was a F&%$*^g Progressive that put the Japanese, Germains, and other ethnics into the internment camps.  It is the far Left that leave out that Rendition was started by Clinton, another Democrat.  So, as usual, through the prism of most on the Left, Rendition is still OK and ongoing, and instead of water-boarding, this latest far Left President is assassinating the folks that would otherwise end up in Guantanamo.  Yes, Mr. President, time to close Guantanamo and Drone them all to death....wouldn't want to be accused of torture, now would you?  New acronym is D-E-E-T for Drone Enhanced Eradication Technique.
Pavelow
“The Boogy man not commeth because I carry.  He knows I'll put a cap in his ass." - Me

Offline bbell

  • Forum VIP.
  • ****
  • Posts: 1214
Re: Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2013, 06:18:52 PM »
I wish you guys would know more about of what you speak. Here is a right perspective on the torture program. They really did not realize how they came off in their round table disscussion.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310656-1

CSpan has plenty more with a more realistic view of the time period. My internet speed is a little spotty right now.
You must forgive them. So many people did not slay the bogey man living under their bed as a child. Thus they feel him everywhere, hence the need to always carry a gun. Living in fear of the bogey man is a heavy burden for people to carry. So sad. 

Offline gitano1

  • Administrator
  • Forum VIP.
  • *****
  • Posts: 11795
Re: Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2013, 08:04:00 PM »
The problem is, BBell, we do know where of we speak, and we know that you are thoroughly drenched in the bullshit of the left. Don't try your leftist, condescending crap with me. I have read Alinsky. I know the technique.
Gitano
"Race has now replaced rule of law officially. In one speech our president has reversed 60 years of healing the racial divide and destroyed the dream of Dr. King. The result will be an exact reversal of the conditions existing before The Civil Rights Act. And the hardest hit will be the children in whose name the left always claims to act. Well done Obama". - Pendark

Offline gitano1

  • Administrator
  • Forum VIP.
  • *****
  • Posts: 11795
Re: Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2013, 07:43:10 AM »
President Obama gives himself permission to kill


After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas -- even Americans -- claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week.

This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in “a veritable Catch-22,” because the feds have created “a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”

She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis.

Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes?
The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any “informed, high-level official of the U.S. government.”

The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed “high-level official,” not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here.

This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and Al Qaeda-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend.

Awlaki’s American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling.

Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he can’t easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right.

The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress.

Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he’d be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet.

Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the president’s careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders.

Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home?


Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.”
Gitano
"Race has now replaced rule of law officially. In one speech our president has reversed 60 years of healing the racial divide and destroyed the dream of Dr. King. The result will be an exact reversal of the conditions existing before The Civil Rights Act. And the hardest hit will be the children in whose name the left always claims to act. Well done Obama". - Pendark

Offline Pavelow

  • Forum Specialist
  • Forum VIP.
  • ******
  • Posts: 2674
Re: Should We Re-Brand the Holocaust?
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2013, 03:42:37 PM »
Four worst Constitutional Presidents in US history:

1.  Woodrow Wilson
2.  Franklin Roosevelt
3.  Barack Obama
4.  Theodore Roosevelt

How would you rank them?
Pavelow
“The Boogy man not commeth because I carry.  He knows I'll put a cap in his ass." - Me