One of the many slick tricks of the Obama administration was to insert
a provision in the massive Obamacare legislation regulating people who
sell gold. This had nothing to do with medical care but everything to
do with sneaking in an extension of the government's power over gold,
in a bill too big for most people to read.

Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to
extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard
cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print
when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be
exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold.

When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how
much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive
national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of
government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with
which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat
people as easily.

That was just one of the ways that the gold standard cramped
politicians' style-- and just one of the reasons they got rid of it.
One of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first acts as president was to take the
United States off the gold standard in 1933.

But, even with the gold standard gone, the ability of private
individuals to buy gold reduces the ability of the government to steal
the value of their money by printing more money.

Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer
resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes. A hundred
dollar bill would buy less in 1998 than a $20 bill would buy in the
1960s. This means that anyone who kept his money in a safe over those
years would have lost 80 percent of its value, because no safe can
keep your money safe from politicians who control the printing
presses.

That is why some people buy gold when they lose confidence in the
government's managing of its money. Usually that is when inflation is
either under way or looming on the horizon. When many people start
transferring their wealth from dollars into gold, that restricts the
ability of politicians to steal from them through inflation.

Even though there is currently very little inflation, purchases of
gold have nevertheless skyrocketed. Ordinarily, most gold is bought
for producing jewelry or for various industrial purposes, more so than
as an investment. But, at times within the past two years, most gold
has been bought by investors.

What that suggests is that increasing numbers of people don't trust
this administration's economic policies, especially their huge and
growing deficits, which add up to a record-breaking national debt.

When a national debt reaches an unsustainable amount, there is always
a temptation to pay it off with inflated dollars. There is the same
temptation when the Social Security system starts paying out more
money to baby boom retirees than it is taking in from current workers.

Whether gold is a good investment for individuals, and whether the
gold standard is the right system for a country, are much more
complicated questions than can be answered here. But what is clear is
that the Obama administration sees people's freedom to buy and sell
gold as something that can limit what the government can do.

Indeed, freedom in general cramps the government's style. Those on the
left may not be against freedom in general. But, at every turn, they
find the freedoms granted by the Constitution of the United States
hampering the left's agenda of imposing their superior wisdom and
virtue on the rest of us.

The desire to restrain or control the buying and selling of gold is
just one of the many signs of the inherent conflict between the
freedom of the individual and the left's attempts to control our
lives.

Sneaking a provision on gold purchases and sales into massive
legislation that is supposedly about medical care is just one of the
many cynical tricks used to circumvent the public's right to know how
they are being governed. The Constitution begins, "We the people" but,
to the left, both the people and the Constitution are just things to
circumvent in order to carry out their agenda.

http://www.tsowell.com/cv.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...cs_versus_gold

On 10/2/2010 12:24 PM, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:

...
in a bill too big for most people to read.


Excellent point! Why should I have to constantly be demanding my public
servants first read what they vote on? I mean a moron usually can
figure that out; What is up with them?

Gold has long been a source of frustration for politicians who want to
extend their power over the economy. First of all, the gold standard
cramped their style because there is only so much money you can print
when every dollar bill can be turned in to the government, to be
exchanged for the equivalent amount of gold.


The is one rule, the golden rule ... but then, there is a second rule
which deserves honorable mention, "If you want to keep your money though
all this, without chance of loss, PUT IT IN GOLD!

When the amount of money the government can print is limited by how
much gold the government has, politicians cannot pay off a massive
national debt by just printing more money and repaying the owners of
government bonds with dollars that are cheaper than the dollars with
which the bonds were bought. In other words, politicians cannot cheat
people as easily.


There are problems with the gold standard, but in lieu of the present
money system, it would be better ... at least until we get a handle on
the crooks, banking into the hands of our government, and the government
back in the hands of the people.

That was just one of the ways that the gold standard cramped
politicians' style-- and just one of the reasons they got rid of it.
One of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first acts as president was to take the
United States off the gold standard in 1933.


Give me a list of the republi-crats demanding to return to the gold
standard, I will vote for them ... as far as I can tell, I won't be
doing that anytime soon, demo-cans just as bad ...

But, even with the gold standard gone, the ability of private
individuals to buy gold reduces the ability of the government to steal
the value of their money by printing more money.


I am not aware of any laws which keep you from trading your good and/or
services for gold, silver, platinum, or any precious metal (well, not
uranium or plutonium, etc.) Just refuse to take worthless dollars ...

Inflation is a quiet but effective way for the government to transfer
resources from the people to itself, without raising taxes. A hundred
dollar bill would buy less in 1998 than a $20 bill would buy in the
1960s. This means that anyone who kept his money in a safe over those
years would have lost 80 percent of its value, because no safe can
keep your money safe from politicians who control the printing
presses.


Inflation is the carrot before the horse ... when you are in danger of
achieving the "American Dream", they hit the inflation button and you
stay with your nose to the grindstone ... if you are just figuring that
out, bud, it is too late for you ... we had price controls which
prevented this from happening, indeed, the price controls had been
implemented because of the great depression ... regan tore 'em off and
it has been downhill ever since.

That is why some people buy gold when they lose confidence in the
government's managing of its money. Usually that is when inflation is
either under way or looming on the horizon. When many people start
transferring their wealth from dollars into gold, that restricts the
ability of politicians to steal from them through inflation.


When idiots will trade goods and services for worthless paper promises,
you use those ... when they won't, you are forced to use gold ... don't
make it sound complicated ...

Even though there is currently very little inflation, purchases of
gold have nevertheless skyrocketed. Ordinarily, most gold is bought
for producing jewelry or for various industrial purposes, more so than
as an investment. But, at times within the past two years, most gold
has been bought by investors.


There is little inflation because no one is buying the homes, cars, etc.
at the current prices ... since wages always trail inflation, it is
nonsensical to ever think that inflating those prices will cure the
problem which inflated prices caused ... but hey, you are dealing with a
government which gave the wealthiest 1% of the people money to bail
them out of the "recession" (depression.) With that type of logic, what
do you expect?

...

The rest is just kinda redundant, repetitive and bitchy--you imply no
recourse's, fixes, cures, etc. ... a response is unnecessary ...

Regards,
JS

On Oct 2, 2:47*pm, John Smith wrote:


there is only one rule that you need to know, and that is those that
own the gold, write the rules. cash is king in a deflating economy.

oh the irony:gold bugs are getting screwed by the private sector that
is selling debased coins:They include false gradings on the quality of
the coins, the use of cheaper alloys instead of pure gold and even
brazen scams where you don't actually even own the gold that you buy


gee, i thought gold based money could not be debased,
SNICKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank god for conservatives/libertarians/fascists, without their
stupidity in the market place, the con artists would starve

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bud...d=bb-budgeting

Five Hidden Costs of Gold
by Jeff Reeves
Wednesday, September 29, 2010


Commentary: Investing in gold isn't as easy as it looks
There's a lot of talk right now about how gold is booming, and how
gold bugs who have been stashing bullion under their mattresses over
the last decade or so have made a killing.
That may be true if you look at the price of the yellow stuff per
ounce. The price of an ounce of gold is up about 30% in the last year,
or over 400% in the last 10 years. How does that relate to actual
returns for investors?
The truth is that gold has steep hidden costs, and that looking at the
numbers on paper doesn't tell the whole story. Here are big costs many
investors overlook.
Higher taxes
The affinity for gold investing and a dislike of the government seem
to go hand in hand, from predictions that massive government debt will
render the dollar worthless to conspiracy theories that there will be
another Executive Order 6102 in which Uncle Sam loots your safe
deposit box and seizes your gold.
But the biggest reason for gold investors to get mad at the feds is
their tax bracket. The IRS taxes precious metal investments —
including gold ETFs like the SPDR Gold Trust (NYSE: GLD - News) and
iShares Silver Trust (SLV - News) — as collectibles. That means a long-
term capital gains tax of 28% compared with 15% for equities (20% if
and when the Bush tax cuts expire next year).
While you may see your gold as a bunker investment, the IRS will treat
you the same as if you were hoarding Hummel figurines. And that means
a bigger portion of your gold profits go to the tax man.
Zero income
Just as the math game on gold price appreciation doesn't tell the
whole story, the lack of regular payouts is another reason why the
long-term profits quoted in gold are incomplete. Many long-term
investors can't afford to stash their savings in the back yard for 20
years. Income is a very valuable feature of many investments and gold
simply doesn't provide that.
Remember, simply looking at returns in a vacuum can't tell you whether
an investment is "good" or "bad." Is it a good idea for a 70-year-old
retiree on a fixed income to bet on penny stocks because they could
generate huge profits? Even if those trades pay off, 99 out of 100
advisers would say something akin to "You got lucky this time, but
don't tempt fate. Quit while you're ahead and don't be so aggressive."
Similarly, the volatile and income-starved gold market is not a place
for everyone. Just because past returns for gold have been so stellar,
that does not mean that gold is low risk or that investors who need a
secure source of regular income will be well-served.
Gold scams take a toll
In a previous article, I detailed gold coin scams in detail. They
include false gradings on the quality of the coins, the use of cheaper
alloys instead of pure gold and even brazen scams where you don't
actually even own the gold that you buy. And that's just on the coins
front. Scams abound in pawn shops and "cash for gold" enterprises that
refuse to give you a true value for your jewelry or other gold items.
You'd think it would be obvious that precious metals should never be
purchased from anyone other than a broker or seller of good repute who
provides proper documentations. But many investors fail to do their
homework, or worse, can't tell forged documents from real ones.
Gold is ready-made to be a retail sales item, and with that comes all
manner of unscrupulous activity. Vigilant investors can protect
themselves, but do not underestimate the very real price of being
taken to the cleaners by a gold scam if you don't do your homework.
High ownership and storage costs
Maybe through some creative accounting or selective amnesia at tax
time you can mitigate the tax burden of gold. But one expense you
can't as easily avoid is the high ownership cost of gold. After all,
it's not like you mined it yourself — and all those middlemen between
the ore and you want to get paid.
The first is that old tightwad Uncle Sam again. Even if you can avoid
him going on the capital gains front, he gets you coming into gold via
sales tax on most jewelry and coins. And then there are the high
transaction costs and commissions that gold can carry. Anyone who has
bought jewelry knows significant markups are part of the precious
metals trade, and that's the same for investment gold as it is for
engagement rings. The bottom line is that some of your initial buy-in
goes towards the business of gold and you'll never get it back, not
unlike realtor fees or broker fees.
And then there's the additional cost of storing your gold. You have to
pay a fee for a safe deposit box, and if you have a lot of gold, that
can run you a few hundred bucks a year for a good-sized box. Of course
if you're afraid of that Order 6102 scam pulled by FDR you likely have
your gold at home in a safe — so that's a one-shot deal. But are you
really foolish enough to distrust the government but trust your gold
stash to be safe without insurance?
The presumed "safety" of gold is good on paper, but obtaining the
actual metal and keeping it safely stored is a costly endeavor.
Yes, gold can lose value
Proponents of gold love to claim that gold has never been worthless
like Lehman Bros. or GM. And while this is true on its face, it is
actually a half-truth. While gold may never become worthless, it is
foolish to think it will never lose value.
Consider that after reaching a record high of $850 per ounce in early
1980, gold plummeted 40% in two months. The average price for gold in
1981 fell to a mere $460 an ounce — and continued nearly unabated
until bottoming with an average price of around $280 in 2000. For
those folks in their 40s and 50s who bought gold at that 1980 high, it
took them 28 years to reclaim the $850 level. That's hardly much of a
retirement plan, unless they lived to be 80 or 90 and just cashed out
recently.
Gold is an investment, period. And no matter how gold bugs spin the
metal as a hedge against inflation and a sure thing that will only go
up, gold can lose its value — sometimes in a hurry, as in the early
1980s.
Jeff Reeves is the editor of InvestorPlace.com. Follow him on Twitter
at twitter.com/JeffReevesIP
___

On 10/2/2010 2:25 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

...

You buy gold to protect yourself, it works well. If you are a damned
fool which buys a piece of paper that says you own gold, count on it
being worth the paper and ink ... and, if you are that stoopid, you
ain't fooling me--you won't even have the money to buy gold with! ROFLOL

Further, if some sells you a gold plated lead coin, you are a fool in
the first place ... indeed, I think you are a fool for buying coins in
the first place ... gold has value ... the fact it is in the shape of a
coin only has value in someones' mind.

My gawd man, if you are really all that stoopid, you should NOT even be
in charge of your own finances! Can't the court appoint someone to care
for you?

Regards,
JS

On Oct 2, 2:24Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:


it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberals,
trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are
liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are
intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry,
racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern
conservative movement

On Oct 2, 2:15Â*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 2:24Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:

Â*it is impossible for liberals to be fascists. fascists hate liberals,
trade unionist, socialists, communists, jews(because most of them are
liberal), the weak, the disabled, minorities, homosexuals. they are
intolerant of other views and religions. they practice bigotry,
racism, and homophobia, etc. say, i just described the modern
conservative movement

"NA" -says- "it is impossible for liberals to be fascists"

On Oct 2, 11:38Â*pm, RHF wrote:

you are simply projecting again.

the GOP, its not fascism when we do itBack to the ‘30s:how the GOP
uses Nazi techniques to rally theÂ*mob:New agencies all the world over
are for the most part in the hands of Jews:If you substitute liberal
for jew you have the same language



http://moronia.us/front/2009/12/back...rally-the-mob/

Back to the ‘30s: how the GOP uses Nazi techniques to rally theÂ*mob
December 10, 2009
Posted by Jules Siegel
By Hrafnkell HarÂ*aldsÂ*son
Instead of Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News
and World Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred RosenÂ*berg
we have Rupert MurÂ*doch and Joseph Farah. These media outÂ*lets spout
anti- liberalism as vocifÂ*erÂ*ously and viciously as any NSDAP proÂ*paÂ*
ganda organ. Like the party ideÂ*oÂ*logues noted above, they employ ad
hominem attacks in place of cogent analyÂ*sis and preÂ*fer name- calling
to actual news.
MurÂ*doch, Farah and their minÂ*ions take street- fighting techÂ*niques
in front of minÂ*ions through use of glossy modÂ*ern technology.
WitÂ*ness, for examÂ*ple, Glenn Beck and Rush LimÂ*baugh went on the
attacked Sen. Mary LanÂ*drieu (D- LA) for her stance on the healthÂ*care
debate in the SenÂ*ate. But they did not criÂ*tique her posiÂ*tion based
on its merÂ*its, and by offerÂ*ing a cogent counter- argument. Instead,
both called a female US senÂ*aÂ*tor a prosÂ*tiÂ*tute (The Rush LimÂ*baugh
Show NovemÂ*ber 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck ProÂ*gram NovemÂ*ber 23,2009).
This sort of attack is comÂ*monÂ*place and difÂ*fers not at all from the
tacÂ*tics used by the National SocialÂ*ist Press in the 20’s andÂ*30’s.
• Glenn Beck listed peoÂ*ple he’d like to “beat to death with a
shovel.â€� In 2001, Beck enuÂ*merÂ*ated the varÂ*iÂ*ous peoÂ*ple that he
“would want to kill with a shovel,� or “line up� and “shoot … in the
head,â€� includÂ*ing Rep. Charles Rangel (D- NY). (Glenn Beck ProÂ*gram,
3/ 9/ 01)
• The RepubÂ*liÂ*can Tea- Party mobs embrace this prinÂ*ciÂ*ple.
IdeÂ*oÂ*logÂ*iÂ*cal rhetoric backs it up: We see for examÂ*ple from Ann
CoulÂ*ter, Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to libÂ*erÂ*als at all?
CoulÂ*ter: I think a baseÂ*ball bat is the most effecÂ*tive way these
days. (FOX News ChanÂ*nel, DayÂ*Side with Linda Vester, 10/ 6)
• “Would you kill someÂ*one for that?…I’m thinkÂ*ing about
killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to
hire someÂ*body to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be
lookÂ*ing me in the eye, you know, and I could just be chokÂ*ing the
life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearÂ*ing my What Would Jesus — band
— Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be
able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the litÂ*
tle band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realÂ*ize, ‘Oh, you
wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to
death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.â€� (Glenn Beck ProÂ*gram, 5/
17/ 05)
• Beck, jokÂ*ing about poiÂ*sonÂ*ing Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker
Pelosi, I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind?
Do those eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink
it. Drink it. Drink it… By the way, I put poiÂ*son in your —â€� (Glenn
Beck ProÂ*gram, 8/ 6/ 09)
• Bill O’Reilly, of peoÂ*ple who critÂ*iÂ*cize him, The Radio FacÂ*
tor, SepÂ*temÂ*ber 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could stranÂ*gle these
peoÂ*ple and not go to hell and get exeÂ*cuted, I would, but IÂ*can’t.â€�
• Bill O’Reilly — radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish KatÂ*
rina had only hit the United Nations buildÂ*ing, nothÂ*ing else, just
had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have resÂ*cuedÂ*them.â€�
• Rush LimÂ*baugh OctoÂ*ber 20, 2009, The Rush LimÂ*baugh Show:
“This guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanÂ*ity
is destroyÂ*ing the planet, humanÂ*ity is destroyÂ*ing the cliÂ*mate, that
human beings in their natÂ*ural exisÂ*tence are going to cause the
extincÂ*tion of life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t
you just go kill yourÂ*self and help the planet byÂ*dying?â€�
• Right Wing blogÂ*ger Roger ErickÂ*son March 31, 2009: “At what
point do the peoÂ*ple tell the politiÂ*cians to go to hell? At what
point do they get off the couch, march down to their state
legislator’s house, pull him outÂ*side, and beat him to a bloody pulp
for being anÂ*idiot?â€�

Part 2: Liberal/Jewish Media and Right Wing Propaganda. This is the
second installment of a detailed examination of the parallels between
the Nazi movement in Germany and the new Republican methodology since
the election of Obama. Also see parts 1, 3, 4, and 5.


Now that we’ve examined the street-level thuggery in Part One, let’s
look at some examples of how the Republican “elite� work.

NSDAP and GOP: Two Medias; One Tactic
Everyone is familiar by now with the Right-wing rhetoric concerning
the “liberal media elite.� Personal responsibility goes right out the
window if you can just blame the other guy for lying about you. Again
we see a striking similarity between the National Socialists and the
Republicans – fix blame, and then accuse them of controlling the
media. The two seem to go hand-in-hand.
“Barack Obama only won because the media favored him and unfairly
denigrated the abilities and accomplishments of John McCain and Sarah
Palin.� We’ve heard this before, of course. It probably won’t surprise
you to know whe
Hitler, July 5, 1942, “New agencies all the world over…are for the
most part in the hands of Jews.�1
If you substitute “liberal� for “Jew� you have the same language.
Again, the liberals, like the Jews, are guilty of “fabrications�:
Sarah Palin, June 3, 2009, Anchorage: Palin spoke of “the entrenched
bureaucrats and the elite self-proclaimed intellectuals, and the smug
lobbyists who dominate Washington, and the liberal media that is
imposing its will on Washington, embracing that status quo, that
business as usual…� 2
This is the same language Hitler used of the “Jewish intellectuals�
and communists who dominated Weimar government. As an aside, she was
displaying typical intellectual dishonesty by lifting much of her
speech from “an article written four years ago by Newt Gingrich and
Craig Shirley without attribution.�3
The Conservapedia echoes Hitler: “The Liberal media elite is the
clique of highly paid, left-leaning executives and journalists who
directly control most output of the main newspapers and broadcasting
organizations.�4
The media is in the hands of the Jews (communists)! The media is in
the hands of the liberals (communists)! I don’t have to make this
stuff up. This is like shooting ducks in a pond or fishing with a hand
grenade.
If that is not enough, surely you remember the Nazi (mis)use of the
press. The National Socialist media became an outlet not for news, but
for propaganda. There is the most famous newspaper owner of all,
Joseph Goebbels and his paper Der Angriff (The Attack – aptly named).
Then there is the Völkischer Beobachter (Folkish [Ethnic] Observer)
edited first by Dietrich Eckart, an infamous “Jew-baiter�, then by
crank-ideologist Alfred Rosenberg.

Today, media has moved on to television and the Internet. Instead of
Der Angriff and the Völkischer Beobachter we have FOX News and World
Net Daily. Instead of Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg we have
Rupert Murdoch and Joseph Farah. These media outlets spout anti-
liberalism as vociferously and viciously as any NSDAP propaganda
organ. Like the party ideologues noted above, they employ ad hominem
attacks in place of cogent analysis and prefer name-calling to actual
news.
Murdoch, Farah and their minions take street-fighting techniques in
front of minions through use of glossy modern technology.
Witness, for example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh went on the
attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) for her stance on the healthcare
debate in the Senate. But they did not critique her position based on
its merits, and by offering a cogent counter-argument. Instead, both
called a female US senator a prostitute (The Rush Limbaugh Show
November 23 2009 and The Glenn Beck Program November 23,2009).
This sort of attack is commonplace and differs not at all from the
tactics used by the National Socialist Press in the 20’s and 30’s.
Vilification is the order of the day. Analysis of the facts, when it
takes place at all, comes in a distant second. As Media Matters for
America reports,
Under its president, Roger Ailes, Fox News routinely employs racially
charged appeals to foment opposition to the Obama administration and
other progressive figures, such as Glenn Beck’s comments that
President Obama is a “racist� and “has a deep-seated hatred for white
people or the white culture.� Before launching the Fox News Channel,
Ailes worked as a media consultant for several Republican campaigns
where evidence shows he similarly appealed to racial fears and biases
for political gain, and as executive producer for Rush Limbaugh’s
television show, during which Limbaugh made several controversial
statements.5

And of course, just as National Socialist ideologues and leaders
motivated the mob, so do Republican ideologues. As I noted above,
Republican objections are not generally issued as cogent and well-
thought-out rebuttals of liberal positions but as ad hominem attacks,
character assassinations, and even suggested violence. This is true
not only of the rank-and-file but of the leadership, the party
ideologues, as can be seen from the examples below.
• Glenn Beck listed people he’d like to “beat to death with a
shovel.� In 2001, Beck enumerated the various people that he “would
want to kill with a shovel,� or “line up� and “shoot … in the head,�
including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). (Glenn Beck Program, 3/9/01)
• The Republican Tea-Party mobs embrace this principle.
Ideological rhetoric backs it up: We see for example from Ann Coulter,
Vester: You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all? Coulter: I
think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. (FOX News
Channel, DaySide with Linda Vester, 10/6)
• “Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing
Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire
somebody to do it,… No, I think I could. I think he could be looking
me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is
this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and
I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say,
‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What
Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael
Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know,
well, I’m not sure.� (Glenn Beck Program, 5/17/05)
• Beck, joking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi: “So, Speaker
Pelosi, I just wanted to — you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind?
Do those eyes not work? There you — I want you to drink it now. Drink
it. Drink it. Drink it… By the way, I put poison in your —�
(Glenn
Beck Program, 8/6/09)
• Bill O’Reilly, of people who criticize him, The Radio Factor,
September 27, 2007: “You know, look, if I could strangle these people
and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can’t.�
• Bill O’Reilly - radio show, Sept. 14, 2005: “I just wish
Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just
had flooded them out, and I wouldn’t have rescued them.�
• Rush Limbaugh October 20, 2009, The Rush Limbaugh Show: “This
guy from The New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is
destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human
beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of
life on Earth — Andrew Revkin. Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill
yourself and help the planet by dying?�
• Right Wing blogger Roger Erickson March 31, 2009: “At what
point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point
do theyÂ*get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s
house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an
idiot?�


Sources:
1Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 tr. By Norman Cameron and
R.H. Stevens (New York 2000 [1953]), 561.
2The Conservative Book Service even has this offering: Matthew
Continetti , The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried
to Bring Down a Rising Star (2009) which makes the case that, “Palin
was a strong and popular conservative with traditional values-work,
family, and religion-and Washington Democrats and their allies in the
so-called mainstream media decided she had to be destroyed. These
elite liberals attacked everything from Palin’s clothing to her
parenting style to her church. They spread one malicious and untrue
rumor after another…�
3Huffington Post, June 6, 2009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffr..._b_212228.html
4Consevapedia, http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_media_elite
5Media Matters for America http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270001
6Fox News, Your World with Neal Cavuto, November 11, 2009.
7The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 1, 2005.
8Glenn Beck Program, April 27, 2006.
9The O’Reilly Factor, May 29, 2007.
10Hitler’s Table Talk, 47.

On Oct 2, 10:31*pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 11:38*pm, RHF wrote:

*you are simply projecting again.

- *the GOP, its not fascism when we do itBack to the ‘30s:how the
GOP
- uses Nazi techniques to rally the*mob:New agencies all the world
over
- are for the most part in the hands of Jews:If you substitute liberal
- for jew you have the same language

NnUa,

So "Fascism" can ONLY be Define and Understood
in the Text of 'Mein Kampf'; the NAZI Propaganda
and Germany of the 1920s/30s/40s . . .

Fascism has not evolved since then . . .

Political Thought has not evolved since then . . .

Political Theory has not evolved since then . . .

Society has not evolved since then . . .

The World has not evolved since then . . .

Words have not evolved since then . . .

The Means of Words have not evolved since then . . .

SO WE ARE ALL FOREVER STUCK IN THE
'MEIM KAMPF' NAZI GERMANY IN THE 1920s

On Oct 3, 2:01*pm, RHF wrote:


except, you have only shown us your own personal opinion, and one
from a crank. nothing credible here.

On Oct 2, 2:24Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:


The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of
the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they
chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings

http://www.buy.com/prod/hitler-and-h...q/loc/106/3042...

Chapter 1: Financing the 1933 Elections
On the cold winter weekend of January 28, 1933, Germany was officially
without a government. Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his cabinet
had resigned on Saturday afternoon, and eighty-six-year-old President
von Hindenburg had not yet appointed a new chancellor. A nervous
tension spread over Berlin. Everyone waited for news; most felt
Germany was at an historic turning point.
Who would be the next chancellor? Hitler - the leader of the largest
party, the Nazis, who pledged to destroy democracy? Papen - the
aristocratic horseman who had been chancellor before Schleicher, but
who had no popular following? Perhaps Schleicher again, if he could
persuade the Social Democrats, the second largest political party in
the country, to join him in a coalition? Governing Germany in the
middle of an economic depression with nine million unemployed was not
an enviable task. The country had just had three different chancellors
in rapid succession. By tradition, the leader of the largest party was
usually appointed chancellor. But the Nazis had been the largest party
for over a year, and so far intrigues and political maneuvering had
succeeded in keeping Hitler out of power. Everyone guessed what a
Hitler government would mean. He had not kept his militarism, anti-
Semitism, and dictatorial ambitions a secret.
Political intrigues were so numerous that weekend that no one really
knew what was going on. Sensational rumors were being spread
throughout the city. Some said an army coup was imminent, that
Schleicher and the generals were about to abduct President von
Hindenburg and declare martial law. There were also rumors of an armed
Nazi uprising and a general strike by the socialist workers.
Hitler and Hermann Goering, the second most powerful man in the Nazi
party, stayed up all night on Sunday, January 29, trying to figure out
what Hindenburg might do. It was not until after 10 A.M. on Monday
that Hitler received a summons to the president's office. Even at that
point, the Nazis were not certain whether Hitler would be appointed
chancellor or Hindenburg would ask him to serve as vice-chancellor.
Across the street from the Chancellery, in the Kaiserhof Hotel,
Hitler's lieutenants were waiting, unsure of what was going on.
Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, said:

In the street the crowd stands waiting between the Kaiserhof and the
Chancellery. We are torn between doubt, hope, joy and despair. We have
been deceived too often to be able, wholeheartedly, to believe in the
great miracle. [S.A.] Chief of Staff Roehm stands at the window (with
binoculars) watching the door of the Chancellery from which the
Fuehrer [the leader, Hitler] must emerge. We shall be able to judge by
his face if the interview was a success. Torturing hours of waiting.
At last, a car draws up in front of the entrance. The crowd cheers.
They seem to feel that a great change is taking place....
A few moments later, he is with us. He says nothing. His eyes are full
of tears. It has come! The Fuehrer is appointed Chancellor. He has
already been sworn in by the President of the Reich. All of us are
dumb with emotion. Everyone clasps the Fuehrer's hand....Outside the
Kaiserhof, the masses are in a wild uproar....The thousands soon
become tens of thousands. Endless streams of people flood the
Wilhelmstrasse. We set to work...at once.
Hitler's victory was not a complete one by any means. He had been
appointed chancellor in a coalition government. Papen was to be his
vice-chancellor, and all the powerful cabinet posts were held by
Papen's conservative allies, rather than the Nazis. But at the moment,
Hitler's followers weren't worried about the details; for them the
only thing that mattered was that Hitler was chancellor. They had come
to power! All day, crowds gathered in the square outside the Kaiserhof
Hotel and the Chancellery.
At dusk Nazi storm troopers in their brown uniforms gathered in the
Tiergarten park, along with men of the Stahlhelm, an
ultranationalistic veterans' organization, for a torchlight victory
parade through the center of Berlin. As soon as it was dark, they came
marching by the thousands through the Brandenburg Gate, carrying
swastika flags and the black, white, and red flags of the German
empire. Bands marched between the units, beating their big drums as
the men sang old German military songs. But as each band came to the
Pariser Platz, where the French embassy was located, they stopped
whatever they were playing and, with an introductory roll of drums,
broke into the tune of the challenging war song "Victorious We Will
Crush the French."
The torches carried by the marchers glowed hypnotically in the
darkness. To foreign witnesses, it was a frightening sight. "The river
of fire flowed past the French Embassy," Ambassador François-Poncet
wrote, "whence, with heavy heart and filled with foreboding, I watched
this luminous wake." Liberal Germans found it an "ominous sight." It
was, wrote one German reporter, "a night of deadly menace, a nightmare
in...blazing torches."
As the marchers came by the Chancellery, there were tumultuous cheers
for Hitler, who stood in an open window saluting them. He was so
excited that night, he could hardly stand still. He was raising his
arm up and down heiling, smiling, and laughing so much, his eyes
filled with tears. "It was an extraordinary experience," recalled
Papen, who was standing behind Hitler. "The endless repetition of the
triumphal cry: 'Heil, Heil, Sieg Heil!' rang in my ears like a
tocsin." When Hitler turned to speak with Papen, his voice choked with
emotion. "What an immense task we have set for ourselves, Herr von
Papen - we must never part until our work is accomplished." Hitler and
Papen were much closer allies than anyone at the time imagined.
It was after midnight when the parade ended. Being too excited to
sleep, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and a few other Nazis sat up talking
for hours. They could hardly believe it had actually happened: they
were in the Chancellery at last. That evening, Hitler said to
Goebbels, "No one gets me out of here alive." It was one of the few
promises he kept.
On the morning of January 31, Hitler's storm troopers gave the German
people a glimpse of what Nazi rule would be like. All over Germany,
thugs in brown shirts took possession of the streets and roughed up
Communists, socialists, and Jews; they chased socialist mayors and
officials out of government buildings and even broke into the private
homes of their political enemies. When people complained to Papen, he
laughed. "Let the storm troopers have their fling." Among his friends
at the Herrenklub, an exclusive gentlemens club, he boasted: "We've
hired Hitler." To a skeptic he replied: "What do you want? I have
Hindenburg's confidence. Within two months we will have pushed Hitler
so far in the corner that he'll squeak."
The facts seemed to support Papen's optimism. Not only did Papen have
Hindenburg"s confidence, but in fact the old president had promised
never to receive Hitler unless he was accompanied by his vice-
chancellor. Papen also held the important post of minister-president
of Prussia, Germany's largest and most powerful state. From the
composition of the cabinet, it seemed all the real power was in the
hands of the conservatives: the aristocratic General von Blomberg was
minister of defense, Baron von Neurath, a career diplomat, was foreign
minister, and the old archreactionary Hugenberg was both minister of
economics and minister of agriculture. The Nazis were outnumbered six
to two.
The two Nazis in the cabinet, Wilhelm Frick and Goering, held posts
that were thought to be insignificant. Frick was minister of the
interior, but he did not control the police, which in Germany was
under the jurisdiction of the individual state governments. Goering
was made minister without portfolio, but with the promise that he
would be minister of aviation as soon as Germany had an air force. He
was also named minister of the interior of Prussia, an office that did
not receive much notice by the public but did control the Prussian
police.
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did. These men belonged to the old ruling class of the kaiser's
Germany. They wanted to regain their old position of supremacy, lost
in 1918. They wanted to restore the monarchy, suppress the socialist
unions, avenge the loss of World War I, and make Germany the dominant
power in Europe. It was obvious why such reactionary nationalists
helped put Hitler in power: their goals and his were very similar.
Few people knew the full extent of Papen's collaboration with Hitler.
Historians have said he "did more than anyone else outside the Nazi
party to help Hitler to power." Papen helped Hitler because he was
trying to control him and use the Nazis for his own aims.
Papen was a handsome aristocratic-looking man with distinguished gray
hair and an officer's mustache. From an impoverished family of the
Westphalian nobility, he became a General Staff officer, a skillful
horseman, and a man of great charm. After a successful marriage to the
daughter of a wealthy Saar industrialist, he bought a large block of
shares in the Center party's newspaper, Germania. For a short time in
1932, Papen was chancellor, but his government had no popular support.
Papen believed it would be rather easy for an aristocratic officer
like himself to manipulate a former corporal, like Hitler, and thus be
able to use the Nazi's mass following to accomplish the aims of the
upper-class conservative nationalists.
Hitler immediately began to outmaneuver his conservative colleagues.
He reported to the cabinet that the Center party was making impossible
demands and could not be counted on to form a coalition with the Nazis
and the Nationalists that would have a majority in the Reichstag.
Because of this situation, Hitler argued he would have to call for new
elections. The only "demand" the Center party made was that Hitler
promise to govern constitutionally, but none of the other members of
the cabinet bothered to check Hitler's statement. They agreed to new
elections on the condition that Hitler promise that the composition of
the cabinet would not change regardless of the outcome of the voting.
New elections would provide Hitler with a chance to improve on the
poor results the Nazis had received at the polls the past November. If
the Nazis won a clear majority in the elections, they might be able to
get rid of their coalition partners. Hitler had every reason to
believe the election campaign would be a big success. The entire
machinery of government, including the radio, was now under Nazi
control and could be used for campaigning. The party had been flooded
with new applicants for membership since he had become chancellor. In
the cabinet meeting on February 2, Hitler discussed his preparations
for the elections. Wilhelm Frick, the Nazi minister of the interior,
proposed that the government set aside a million marks for the
election campaign. Count von Schwerin von Krosigk, the minister of
finance, rejected this suggestion. Hitler did not force the issue. He
would have to get the money elsewhere.
The theme of the Nazi election campaign was to be the fight against
communism. Hitler opened the attack in a late-night radio broadcast to
the nation on February 1. He blamed the hard times Germany had gone
through since 1918 on the Social Democrats, which had been the largest
party in the Reichstag during most of those years. The Social
Democrats, he reminded his listeners, were actually a Marxist party.
"Fourteen years of Marxism," he said, "have ruined Germany; one year
of bolshevism [communism] would destroy her. The richest and fairest
territories of the world would be turned into a smoking heap of ruins.
Even the sufferings of the last decade and a half could not be
compared to the misery of a Europe in the heart of which the red flag
of destruction has been hoisted." He went on to promise to put the
unemployed back to work and save the peasants from bankruptcy.

On his fourth day in office, just after opening the election
campaign, Hitler took time off to attend a very important dinner. He
had been invited to the home of General von Hammerstein, chief of
staff of the army, to meet the leading officers of the army and navy.
In a speech that lasted almost two hours, Hitler explained his plans
for rebuilding German military power.
The generals were the real power in Germany during the Weimar period.
After World War II, many Germans tried to cover up the role certain
members of the Officer Corps had played in helping to put Hitler in
power. Many historians naively accepted this view, but the real story
is quite different. Traditionally, the German Army ruled from behind
the scenes and had the final "power to veto" any important issue.
After the loss of World War I, the Versailles Treaty severely
restricted the size of the German Army. The only way the generals
could maintain mass training and develop new weapons was to finance
private paramilitary units, like the Free Corps, with secret army
funds.
Hitler not only began his career as an army agent, but even in the
1930s he was supported by a powerful faction in the army. Over several
years, General von Schleicher, who was in charge of a secret informal
political department of the army, funneled over ten million marks to
Hitler. Why? Many military officers wanted an authoritarian government
that could unify the nation. The people needed to be infused with a
new spirit of patriotism because powerful interests were planning a
war of revenge against the Allies. Naturally there was a division of
opinion among the generals as to how much power to give Hitler.
Hindenburg originally had strong reservations about appointing a man
from a lower-class background, like Hitler, chancellor. However, the
aggressive action the Nazis took against Communists was admired by
Hindenburg, and his relationship with Hitler rapidly improved.
One day, Hindenburg summoned Hitler when Papen was away from Berlin.
Hitler informed the president that Papen was out of town and reminded
him of the rule he (Hindenburg) had made, that the chancellor could
visit him only when accompanied by the vice-chancellor. "The old
gentleman [Hindenburg]," said Hitler, "replied that he wished to see
me alone, and that in the future the presence of Papen could be
regarded as unnecessary. Within three weeks, he had progressed so far
that his attitude towards me became affectionate and paternal. Talking
of the elections fixed for the 3rd of March, he said, 'What are we
going to do if you fail to get a majority? We shall have the same
difficulties all over again.'"
At the beginning of the election campaign, Hitler and Papen persuaded
old President von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree to protect
law and order. The decree gave Nazi officials the right to prohibit
public meetings. Newspapers could be suppressed if they "incited"
civil disobedience or published "false" reports.