If Barack Hussein Obama II was born in a hospital in Hawaii, then there would be a long-form Birth Certificate (including delivering doctor’s signature) on file with the State of Hawaii.
Now, let’s look at the contrapositive…
| Contrapositive: | The contrapositive of a conditional statement of the form “If p then q” is ”If ~q then ~p“. Symbolically, the contrapositive of p  q is ~q~p.A conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. |
If Barack Hussein Obama II was born in a hospital in Hawaii (p), then there would be a long-form Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II on file with the State of Hawaii (q).
p q
The contrapositive,
~q~p
is:
If there is not a long-form Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II on file with the State of Hawaii (~q), then Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (~p).
And if Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in a hospital in Hawaii, then his ”birth narrative” is fraudulent.
So, is there a long-form Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II on file with the State of Hawaii?
Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu, says, “No“.
Which brings us right back to:
OK, Speaker Pelosi, How Did the DNC Certify Obama’s Eligibility?
And:
Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?
A careful analysis of what evidence has and has not been presented reveals that Obama’s eligibility is A Matter of Faith…
Well then, just who is Obama? Do you know, because I certainly have no clue who he is! He has basically hidden his past from me. There is only one reason I know of that people choose to hide their past. Secrets are kept for reasons.
So, who does Obama choose to be? Do you know, because I certainly have no clue. He says one thing and does another. He has a certain set of associate that have VERY questionable backgrounds….he said at one point, if you want to know me, look at the people I surround myself with. In your opinion, Ryan, is that who Obama chooses to be?
Sally, I went into this discussion with you thinking you were a reasonable person. Perhaps you are, but you are letting your fear (which I believe is misplaced) affect your judgement, and you’re grasping at straws. Every thing that is said by someone in favour of Obama seems to be something you doubt by default. Everything said by a person that casts doubt on his past, seems to be taken as truth, even if it pure speculation.
You cling to the small inconsistencies in the details provided by numerous sources on Obama, which are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
I’m sure you will consider this a concession on my part, and that’s fine with me. I’m not here to support Obama. I’m here to put an end to a denial of logical reasoning, but that’s not something you’re ready for until you stop being so afraid of people who think differently than you.
Like you, I too, thought you to be a reasonable person, but I’ve come to the conclusion that you are just incapable of seeing the words ‘natural born citizen’ and understanding that there is NO legally defined meaning of that term contained within the Constitution.
As much as you would like it to say, born on US Soil, it just simply does not.
At least I will concede that while it does not contain the word SOIL, it also does not specify IF parental heritage is important or not a factor. Personally, I feel your thought process in this regard is grasping at straws and is illogical reasoning – it’s just pure speculation on your part – there simply is no stated definition. However, I have provided case law to back up my position.
Throughout our discourse you have failed to realize that for every argument you throw at me, I can logically throw back at you the very same argument. You seem to be either incapable or unwilling to agree that it is an interpretation issue.
There is case law out there that has been dug up that supports both sides; hence, as I’ve said – I can see both sides. Are you saying that the justices of case law past were just afraid and it affected their judgment? Do you see how illogical your argument is?
I do not consider your post as a concession. While I know you are Canadian, taking a position and defending it with your whole being is what makes America the greatest nation on Earth. We are not only allowed to do so – we are encouraged to do so.
Small inconsistencies to you, are very real and solid differences in documents provided by one single source. How can you not understand the differences? Perhaps it is my legal background where finding those seemingly small and insignificant differences, were usually where the crux of the case lay and made the difference in winning a court suit or not. I just know how government officials work – even in my work at a local government level – there was never even the smallest of public statements released without it being reviewed and approved by upper management and most importantly the legal department. Statements were crafted to sound like one thing and mean another – in order to pacify the locals. Why would Hawaii be any different? I’m positive there are policies and procedures that must be followed in order to release ANY statement.
I do not believe Fukino quipped a statement off the cuff (which in your opinion would account for her inconsistencies)….to do so would have violated policy and procedure of a government agency, as they would not have wanted to open themselves up to litigation at any cost – given the magnitude of what they were dealing with.
The only fear I have is for my country and I fear what Obama is doing to my country. I want to believe and I pray that he is doing what he feels in his heart is best for the country, but common sense tells me that is just not the case. Common sense and seeing what he is doing to our economy, tells me he is doing exactly as he promised on the campaign trail – ‘fundamentally changing America’. Fundamentally, America doesn’t need changing – but it is happening – right before our eyes.
Perhaps since you don’t have a pony in the race here (living in Canada) you cannot see the situation as clearly as we see it. I’m living – daily – with his failed economic policies. I have family members who have lost their jobs and their homes. This has happened under the leadership of a man who insisted on passing a huge stimulus plan and promised unemployment wouldn’t go over 8% while it now sits at around 10% with no end in sight. The only thing that is illogical here – are Obama’s political ideologies.
I’m not afraid of people who think differently, if I were – I wouldn’t be here debating the issue with you. I can’t possibly imagine what I have said that would have given you the impression that I’m fearful of others with differing opinions. I think I have been very clear in my positions, I have not been hateful or demeaning in my presentation, I have been respectful of your opinions (which I’m not sure I can say about you), and I have been civil – things that fear usually doesn’t allow for. My points of view are different from yours to be sure, but that doesn’t make me afraid.
America is a great nation full of wonderful people, but that particular trait is not something that is admired by me. Belief for the sake of belief is not an admiral trait. Believing that the founding fathers opinions should trump anything else is idiotic. This very same attitude toward science education may well result in the downfall of your economic success, yielding the lead to other countries not blinded by a desire to adhere to ancient texts and victorian era documents.
I’m sure you’re nice, but were not getting anywhere.
Then you obviously do not admire the President, as he has been steadfast in his beliefs….if nothing else. That is the one thing I can compliment Obama on – he has a belief (left-wing socialistic agenda), and he has not waivered, no matter what his advisors have told him, no matter what public opinion is, and no matter that the majority of American’s disapprove….he remains committed to his ideologies. Does he believe the way he does just for the sake of believing? Possibly, since history and research has shown time and again his socialistic policies do not work….they are not working even now!
Believing in something with your whole being IS a very admirable trait, in fact, a trait that you yourself possess – you have not waivered in your belief since I started this discourse. How odd that you don’t find it admirable. Do you believe just for the sake of believing? I’m sure you think you don’t, but I’m sure you think I do – (Rule #11) I was taught from an early age: if you believe in something, stand up for that belief, for if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. I’m sure that is an old quote, but I have no idea who said it.
I don’t believe for the simple sake of believing – I believe because my critical thinking skills had lead me to that belief – and I have not waivered; although I have questioned my belief through my research at times and from reading opposition – bottom line, I have never altered my foundational belief that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS.
I gave a lot of thought to your previous post on fear (Rule #5). I have come to the conclusion that you are the one who is fearful. If I do not come around to your way of thinking, you seem to be fearful that it might have consequences undesireable to you.
I really feel your fear is misguided, although not illogical. Obama IS the president and I don’t think that is likely to change until 2012, so I think your fear is for naught. Athough, perhaps you would like to see him re-elected. Of couse it is possible, but not likely. (I asked my 8-Ball – LOL)
And you’re right – we are getting nowhere – other than I have a better understanding of why you feel the way you do (which is the primary purpose of blogging). I’m not sure if you have a better understanding of my point of view or not – because you feel I am totally without merit, wear a little tin-foil hat, and illogical in my thinking (Rule #5 & #11)….yet, you feel I am the fearful one. You’d think if I’m an illogical thinker, I wouldn’t even know that I needed to be fearful! LOL
When we can open our minds and understand all points of view and then draw our own conclusions, just because they are not the same conclusions as our neighbor does not make us fearful – I think it makes us the wiser. Closing our minds to any other possibiliities, breeds fear.
Take care and keep studying those Alinksy Rules for Radicals…you did well grasshopper; although, you need more work on Rules 4, 8 & 10, and you allowed me to turn Rule 4 back on you, which didn’t help your argument.
It’s been fun – over and out.
Yeah, another post of your full of things with no basis in fact or reason. No, you are not good at critical thinking.
The fact that you think Obama is left wing, or socialist means you get your views from others, and have not researched it yourself. If Obama was a candidate in Canada, he would be to the right of all the major parties. As for socialism, every major country employs some socialist policies (public schools, paved roads, fire departments), but that does not make them “socialist”. Read up a little on socialism, and tell me you think Obama is even close to one.
Ryan,
I know you were replying to Sally, but I want to address the following B.S.:
The fact that I think Obama is left wing, or socialist is the direct result of my having done my own research and found that Obama is driving us down The Road to Socialism USA.
Please enlighten us on where the agenda of the Obama administration differs from the official program of the Communist Party USA.
So you’re employing the slippery-slope fallacy.
If you’ve read both Obama’s policies and the policies of the CPUSA, and can’t tell the difference, there’s no way you’ll comprehend my explanation for you.
There are some who believe we are what we eat while others believe we are what we practice. Obama practices socialism and his followers feast on it.
216,000,000
That is about how many human beings–lives with loved ones, families, and futures–have died as a result of left-wing politics since the start of the 20th Century.
Soviet Communism: 9,000,000 killed in bloody revolution led by Lenin; 18,000,000 political prisoners he perceived as against his left-wing communist agenda; another 12,000,000 died as a result of famine brought by the left’s management of farming and food production in the Soviet Bloc.
German National Socialism: 5,000,000 Jews burned to death in gas chambers after he declared them enemies of the German National Socialist ideal; 8,000,000 others killed, starved or worked to their deaths under his socialist aegis; another 42,000,000 lives destroyed by the war that was a part of his socialist agenda; another 200,000 killed by Mussolini’s left-wing government. (And yes, because they started it, they ARE responsible for all casualties on both sides of the war)
Chinese Communism: 46,000,000 political prisoners, innocent villagers, soldiers, and other killed during his so-called “Great Leap Forward”, left-wing communist revolution; another 600,000 killed by the left-wing Chinese government in Tibet.
The Communist Khmer Rouge: 1,600,000 killed over a Holiday In Cambodia.
North Korea: 2,800,000 killed by war started by the left-wing “Peoples” government in Pyongyang; another 3,000,000 starved to death by left-wing attempts to manage food production.
How many more people have to die at the hands of left-wing politicians and their followers? How many millions more have to suffer the poverty and famine that are a natural product of left-wing agendae? Why must the world continue to suffer the existence of left-wingers and all the ill they have wrought upon it? The left-wing political ideology has millions of gallons of blood staining its hands all because they truly believe they know what’s better for you than you. The right wing may not be perfect, but their penchant for killing dissenters has never reached mainstream like it so regularly does with the left. I’ll stick with the side that increases my odds of NOT dying because of them.
Sorry for being off-topic.
Aaron, please read a book or two about the regimes you think you understand. You’re not just off-topic. You’re out of your mind. Stop watching Glen Beck.
Ryan,
Aaron is both correct and on-topic. We have an ineliglible Communist-in-Chief, and his “Family Friend” Bill Ayers has, for decades, planned how to exterminate millions of people who resist Communism.
Ayers is a Violent, Revolutionary Communist. What is Obama?
David Horowitz and Pat Caddell on Soros´ Shadow Cabinet and the Green Communists
Barack Obama in Kenya supporting Communist, Sharia-supporting Raila Odinga in Kenya:
What’s the matter, Ryan? Don’t want to accept that the left-wing political idiology (misspelling intentional) that you cling so strongly to is covered in more blood than any religion or other ideology by multiple orders of magnitude?
Or is it that you want to claim that some of those regimes were somehow right-wing, instead? Except for you to claim that of any of those regimes would be historic revisionism. The left-wing idiology of those regimes is verifiable. Would you like links proving that the Deutche National Socialist Workers’ Party was a left-wing group? I’d offer to provide similar links about Soviet Communism, but that’d be like being tasked to prove that the moon exists.
The Democratic Socialist Communist Web
Aaron,
You are being ridiculously over simplistic saying Stalin was leftist, Hilter was leftist etc etc. The narrative behind any and all of those events that you mentioned is infinitely more complicated than left vs right.
Bullock, widely regarded as having produced the authoritative history of Hitler and Nazi Germany, had this to say “While Hitler’s attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested — mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism.”
The very act of totalitarianism exhibited by those that you reference goes against traditional definitions of liberalism.
It aids your argument naught by trying to advance such a simplistic view of an extremely complicated situation.
Frin,
The right is against Socialism in all of its forms… whether that be the National Socialism of the Nazis, or The Road to Socialism of the Communists.
Mr. Pill,
Hung up as usual on words, you see that the Nazi’s called themselves the National Socialist Party, and assume it must be true. That’s a great deal of trust to put in a party of murderers. I assume you also trust Kim Jung Il when he calls his country the Democratic Republic of Korea (when is their next election by the way?).
Anyone who thinks Hitler embraced liberalism, socialism, communism or Marxism has not read the words of any credible historian, anyone who witnesses the atrocities, anyone who participated in the atrocities, or indeed the words of the Führer himself.
I know that Fox News likes to put all these ideologies on a linear continuum for you, but that just isn’t how it works. Saying all the fascists of the past were “left wing” is incorrect (as is the false dichotomy that is the corollary – “right wing”) as well as irrelevant. Their political ideals were made irrelevant by the fact that they wished to impose them by force, whatever they may have been.
“Anyone who thinks Hitler embraced liberalism, socialism, communism or Marxism has not read the words of any credible historian, anyone who witnesses the atrocities, anyone who participated in the atrocities, or indeed the words of the Führer himself.”–Ryan
Really Ryan? And in your revised history books, what does it say he was?
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler, 1 May, 1927
I suppose you’d claim this quote is not associated with communism, socialism or Marxism, and proves nothing, right? Let’s continue.
A basic tenet of liberalism is constant campaigning against “Big Tobacco.” Check out Robert N Proctor’s book on the Nazi Party’s anti-tobacco campaign. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6573.html Or is Proctor some sort of biased source who “would write such things”?
How about animal rights? Protecting animals from abuse is another basic tenet of liberalism. Check out the Nazi Party’s animal rights work here. http://www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html
Next, gun control. Elimination of private firearms ownership is one of the most prominent pieces of the eft-wing’s political platform. Below, is actual legislation implemented by the Nazis.
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
-Classified guns for “sporting purposes”.
-All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
-Exempted Nazi Party members from the gun control law.
-Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
-The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
-Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
Nazis were among the first pro-abortion advocates and took very strong positions on it.
-June 26, 1935 – Nazis pass law allowing forced abortions on women to prevent them from passing on hereditary diseases.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html
For more on Hitler and his abortion policies, take a look at the next link:
http://www.precious-life.com/Hitler_and_Abortion.htm
How about economic policy and practice? Hitler was named Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1938. Here is an excerpt from that article.
“Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany’s bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.”–Time Magazine, 2 January 1939
Hitler’s economic policy was pure, unbridled socialism. For more on Hitler’s socialist economic policy, check this link from San Jose State University.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/germany.htm#NAZI
Do I need to continue by highlighting Nazi anti-Christian views and actions? Anti-Christianity, as proven by the postings of liberals who visit this board, is also a part of liberalism. If that’s not enough to cement the anti-Christianity sentiment of the left, just take a look at the message boards of media matters, moveon, huff-post, and daily kos websites to find tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of different users posting anti-Christian comments.
Well you found a good quote for yourself didn’t you Aaron? But what you don’t mention (or don’t know) In 1922, Hitler defined a socialist as “whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own … [such that] nothing in the world surpasses in his eyes this German people and land.” That’s nationalism, not socialism.
In 1929, Hitler expressed regret at using the word “socilaism” in the party name. It had been a remnant of the party he took over, and in 1934, many members of the more left wing faction of the Nazi party were rounded up and executed.
The Nazis kept a record of people who had committed crimes against the state, and in that boo, there were several people convicted of the crime of socialism.
Hitler fooled the German population with his words, and 70 years later, he has fooled you.
A couple more points. You are confusing the results with the intent. Hitler seized control of PRIVATELY owned businesses. Communism, and to a lesser extent, socialism, is about the working class maintaining ownership of industry via GOVERNMENT owned businesses. This is a huge difference. Hitler was very much against all forms of socialism, and was extremely anti-communist. This is pretty basic high school history.
And Anti-Christian views? Seriously? Although Hitler’s interpretation of Christianity was a little weird, he was most certainly a Christian. The Nazis used the teachings of Martin Luther in their political platforms, and there was Christian and Catholic symbolism in much of the Nazi propaganda, including the “Fuhrer’s Principle”. The Nazis wanted to USE the church as a method of propaganda, and there were many arguments between them and church leaders who were against the Nazi Party, but it wasn’t an anti-Christian attitude that precipitated any of it.
You want to put some references with your claims? Unlike you, I have provided references.
“In 1929, Hitler expressed regret at using the word “socilaism” in the party name. It had been a remnant of the party he took over, and in 1934, many members of the more left wing faction of the Nazi party were rounded up and executed.”–Ryan
Reference, please.
“The Nazis kept a record of people who had committed crimes against the state, and in that boo, there were several people convicted of the crime of socialism.”–Ryan
Need a reference showing a.) Weimar Germany or the Nazi Party put forth legislation making socialism a crime, and b.) record of any conviction of that crime under Nazi Party rule. Note: the July, 1933 declaration making the Nazi Party the only legal party in Germany does not constitute a ban on socialism.
Regardless of whether he difined socialism differently or not, it DIDN’T change the fact that he still held the Nazi Party up as, “enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries…” and that they were, “…determined to destroy this [capitalist] system under all conditions.”
The definition of socialism Ryan put forth is nowhere to be found in a credible dictionary source. However, here are two top sources that HAVE put forth definitions.
From Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, “1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”
“You are confusing the results with the intent.” Hitler had only the highest of intentions for the select group of people (ethnic Aryans) he preferred. You can call it “confusing results with intent” all you wish, but having a positive intent is never a valid argument. Do cops confuse results with intent when they arrest a drunk driver at a crash scene? After all, he INTENDED to drive home without wrecking.
“Hitler seized control of PRIVATELY owned businesses.” Which is exactly what socialist heads of state do.
“Communism, and to a lesser extent, socialism, is about the working class maintaining ownership of industry via GOVERNMENT owned businesses.”–Ryan
Is there somehow, in your mind, a difference between the GOVERNMENT seizing PRIVATELY owned businesses (thereby making them GOVERNMENT owned), and GOVERNMENT owned businesses? Or does it “not count as socialism” because the previous “owners” were still there (in name only)? Maybe you can find a difference after you get done parsing the words but the old addage, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…” applies in full force here. There are times when parsing words is appropriate, but doing so in desperate attempt to separate Naziism from left-wing politics is not one of those times.
And yes, Hitler and the Nazi Party were very much anti-Christian.
“…under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.’”–Shirer, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”–Adolf Hitler as quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich. Speer was the Nazi Minister of Armaments.
In fact, the Catholic Church actually despized the Nazi Party. Nowhere is that made clearer than in “Mit Brennender Sorge”. It was originally written in German and smuggled into Nazi Germany. A complete English translation can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html
That you arrived at your points from “pretty basic high school history” speaks volumes of the bias and historic revisionism prevalent in Canada’s high schools.
“…and 70 years later, he has fooled you.” You might want to check your mirror on that one.
Hitler’s comment about being “enemies of today’s capitalistic system”, it should be noted, was made in order to get elected, and to a population desperate for a boost in moral, and willing to believe just about anything.. He failed to mention the “I’m going to kill millions of people in our name” thing too.
References? Here you go:.
“in 1929, Hitler backtracked, saying that socialism was ‘an unfortunate word altogether’ and that ‘if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.’”
- Henry A. Turner, German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Oxford University Press, 1985. p. 77.
“Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not.”
- Carsten, Francis Ludwig (1982).The Rise of Fascism, 2nd ed. University of California Press, p. 137. Quoting: Hitler, A., Sunday Express, September 28, 1930.
“I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State … The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners”
- Calic, Edouard (1968). Ohne Maske (Without a Mask), Frankfurter Societäts-Druckerei, pp. 11, 32–33 Quoting Hitler
Yes, there is a difference. Hitler went to the businesses and laid down the law. He told them what they would produce, who they could sell it to, and how much they were to receive in return. Ownership did not change hands. This is fascism, not socialism.
I’ll surprise you a bit and backtrack on the Christianity thing. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought Hitler was in agreement with the church. His beliefs were pretty messed up, but he did not reject Christianity as much as he thought he was above it. He though himself as a saviour in his own right, which is certainly against Christianity, and I can see how you would characterize that correctly as anti-Christian. As far as the Catholic church despising Hitler, well of course they did, he had started his own brand of state controlled Christianity that did not have a direct line to Rome.
You have not provided a reference to any credible historian that believes Hitler was a communist, or even socialist. A reference that socialism is any system with government control of industry is far to vague to be pigeon holed as “socialism”.
Giving a reference that Hitler was a vegetarian does not label him a liberal any more than the fact that I like trucks and guns labels me a conservative. Likewise, calling him a liberal because he forced women to have abortions is the same as calling him a conservative because he liked to execute people.
“Yes, there is a difference. Hitler went to the businesses and laid down the law. He told them what they would produce, who they could sell it to, and how much they were to receive in return. Ownership did not change hands. This is fascism, not socialism.” That proves you really would find a difference between gov-owned and puppet-owned if it suits your narrative.
Socialism is state-controlled industry; I have already proven that through the definitions I provided. You can claim, “it’s not TRUE socialism”, all you wish, but that is just combining a “Sharp-Shooter” with a “No True Scotsman.” You’re redefining the term “Socialism” to suit your narrative and then claiming all else as “Not True Socialism” based on some ancillary aspect of it not falling exactly in line with your new definition.
Fascism is socialism with a different window dressing; specifically, leaving the previous owner with the title in name only. In both cases, the state controls all aspects of industrial production and compensation for provided product/service. The title of ownership, regardless of who has it, doesn’t matter because it conveys nothing. They’re both left-wing political platforms for the simple fact that they’re both forms of government-run social/economic collectivism. I have already provided credible sources showing that Hitler was a left-wing politician for the simple fact that almost every facet of his platform–gun control, abortion on demand, animal rights, mandated privileges for certain ethnicities at the cost of others (AKA affirmative action), anti-tobacco, government-run economy– and regime was.
“in 1929, Hitler backtracked, saying that socialism was ‘an unfortunate word altogether’ and that ‘if people have something to eat, and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.’” That is just a typical politician’s off-the-cuff “panem et circenses” comment. It simply showed that he was willing to use bread and circuses to retain power, which is no different than implementing or expanding social programs like soc sec, medicare and welfare. It is interesting that bread and circuses tactics are a staple of modern day left-wing politicians.
I never said anything about Hitler being a vegeterian. I didn’t need to and had no intention to as his personal choice to shun meat is just that, a personal choice. He is at least better than modern-day vegans in that he didn’t REPEATEDLY try and force his personal choice onto everyone else. (though he did WANT that for all Germans)
I also didn’t address the “homosexual persecution” myth that is too commonly perpetuated by most leftists in their efforts to disassociate Hitler’s Nazi Party with left-wing politics.
Last note: For you to claim that you like trucks on this website flies directly in the face of previous posts where you attempted to demonize Conservative Americans by claiming that I automatically drove a Hummer to hurt the environment. How does one demonize another person for supposedly (but far from confirmed) owning a type of vehicle that he later claims to like?
I did not claim you drove a Hummer. If I remember correctly, I mentioned that there are conservatives out there that like to point out the fact that they drive large vehicles just to piss off environmentalists. On Earth day, there were plenty of conservative bloggers that pointed out that they left their engines running all day.
Yes, I like trucks. I like off-roading too. But I drive about once a week. I ride my bike to work every day. My bike is leaning against my chair at a coffee shop right now, if you care.
You linked to a site that talked at length about Hitler shunning the eating of meat. Sorry if I misunderstood.
So the quotes you dig up are when Hitler was telling the truth, and the ones I dig up are examples of lies?
If you’re willing to define socialism as simply that state being in control of some industry, then, sure every oppressive state in history has been socialist by definition. But the type of socialism we’ve been talking about on this site is far from just industry control. If you’re talking about the type of socialism inspired by Marx, the extreme of which is called communism, then I’m afraid you are wrong in linking it to Hitler. Hitler hated communism, and that fact is irrefutable.
I’ve also done some reading on the Catholic church and the Nazi regime. Yes, the churches in Germany were pretty pissed off at Hitler, but the Vatican practically shined the man’s shoes. I give some credit to Pope Pius, who seemed to have some personal reservations towards the regime, but the Catholic church offered no resistance to Hitler.
“There’s one birth certificate we haven’t seen…”
“So the quotes you dig up are when Hitler was telling the truth, and the ones I dig up are examples of lies?”
1. You just committed hypocrisy by dismissing my quote as a lie and now you’re trying to claim (and complain) that I am doing it to you. It was right here:
“Hitler’s comment about being “enemies of today’s capitalistic system”, it should be noted, was made in order to get elected…”
2. I never claimed any quote you brought up to be a lie. Pointing out the fact that it was a “panem et circenses” comment hardly makes it a lie. If you don’t see how your quote is straight “panem et circenses”, then nothing can change that.
“If you’re willing to define socialism as simply that state being in control of some industry…” *Sigh…Once again, here is the definition of socialism, pulled right from the sources. (caps emphasis mine)
From Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, “1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or GOVERNMENTAL OWNERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : A SYSTEM OR CONDITION OF SOCIETY IN WHICH THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE STATE
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which THE MEANS OF PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING GOODS IS OWNED collectively or by a CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT THAT OFTEN PLANS AND CONTROLS THE ECONOMY.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP of the economy UNDER THE DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat HAS NOT YET BEEN SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVED.”
We have already established that Hitler’s dictatorship controlled all aspects of industry within Nazi Germany. Even after accounting for the meaningless “owners still in place” window-dressing he kept, Hitler’s government was clearly and undeniably socialist. Communism simply expands that from some industries to ALL (or nearly all) industry. All the nonsense about the “working class” owning industry is just fairy-tale, proven by the fact that in EVERY SINGLE communist regime that has ever existed, the “working class” didn’t own anything (except what they were able to hide from the state). For as much Christianity “fairy-tale” bashing as you conduct on this site, I’m surprised to see you buy into such a fairy-tale as that of socialism/communism.
BTW: you are correct that it was not you who demonized me for supposedly (but not confirmed) driving a Hummer. It was Math, under the “No Blood For Oil”, August, 2009. My mistake on that one. Just don’t let him know that you have a truck or he’ll hope for the suffering of your children and grand children so he can blame it on you and your truck.
Well let’s lay this all to rest. President Obama, please show the American people your long form birth certificate and the truth will set you free.
I recently applied for a passport at a local post office. The first birth certificate I brought them was from the hospital where I was born that included the signature of the doctor who delivered me and my baby footprints. The post office told me I needed a state issued Birth Certificate that included the state seal. I went home, dug through my military files and presented the birth certificate I used to gain entry into the military, a state issued short form birth certificate. The paper work was being processed until today. I opened up my mail box to find a letter from the state department that said:
“Dear Mr. XXXXX:
Thank you for your recent passport application. We need your help in providing the necessary evidence of United States citizenship or nationality. The evidence you submitted is not acceptable for passport purposes for the reason(s) stated below:
- You submitted a Texas Birth Card or a Texas Birth Abstract, which only provides limited birth information. We need additional information provided only on the long-form birth certificate. Please submit a copy of the long-form birth certificate.”
Now I was born in the great State of Texas as a bonified U.S. citizen by parents who were both U.S. citizens by birth. I served in the military with a high level security clearance and received an honorable discharge. If the documentation I submitted, which is nearly identical to the BC Mr. Soetoro, excuse me, Obama gave as evidence of nationality on his website, then I don’t know what is.
And so the American people ask you again to show us the evidence required by the United States Department of State to verify citizenship or nationality. For some reason I don’t think this will ever happen. And, so the question begs to be answered.
Now I know Obama traveled to Pakistan during a time when it was off limits to American travelers, and he does have a passport so he must have had the required documentation to receive it. The American people deserve to see this evidence!
Pingback: Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”? « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
Came across this quote from Republican governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, and thought of you. I’m interested in how you will twist these clear words to support your conspiracy.
1) You provided no link.
2) I did a Bing search on “Lingle recently told WABC”.
3) None of the search results come directly from WABC.
4) My guess is that you got this from CNN. (The top hit in the search results is this CNN story).
5) The CNN story also does not provide any links to substantiate their claims:
5) Lingle has previously stated outright falsehoods as certain truths. She is either a useful idiot or an intentional and shameless liar.
6) If Obama was in fact born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, then there is a long-form birth certificate to prove it. And that’s just a fact. If they don’t release the long-form birth certificate to prove it, then we must assume that it does not really exist. And if it does not exist, then the Obama birth narrative is fraudulent.
In part 5) of my previous comment, I linked to a comment I had made to an earlier post. I’m going to repeat that comment below. It includes the audio of exactly what Lingle told WABC, and it contains absolute, verifiable falsehoods.
—
At many points along the last 18 months, leftists have tried to say that Obama must have been born in Hawaii, because the Governor of Hawaii is a Republican, and if there wasn’t an original, initial vital record from a Hawaiian hospital showing that Obama was born there, then surely this Republican Governor would have exposed the truth.
The truth is that Lingle has never claimed to have looked at the original, initial vital record. And the truth is that Lingle, whether intentionally or not, now distorts what was said by Dr. Fukino’s statement.
Here’s what Fukino did and did not say in her October 31, 2008 statement: Parsing the Statement by Dr. Fukino about Barack Hussein Obama’s Official Birth Certificate
Here’s what Fukino did and did not say in her July 27, 2009 statement: Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?
Now, Governor Lingle falsely claims that the October 31, 2008 statement said “that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.” That is patently false. Regardless of whether Lingle is being intentionally dishonest or just clueless, it doesn’t matter… she is speaking lies, and cannot be trusted.
Here is the larger context of what she said:
“And that’s just a fact…”
No, that’s just a lie.
And the people who are creating “a horrible distraction for the country” are those who will not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
On 2010/08/06 at 5:55 pm Ryan said
The people twisting words to support their conspiracy are Linda Lingle, CNN, and you.
Notice how CNN conveniently edited Lingle’s words, to intentionally leave out Lingle’s lie?
Lingle said
CNN edited that and said
So let’s highlight what CNN left out…
Gee, do you think CNN’s editing leaves out a key detail? A detail that is demonstrably a lie?
Do you think this shows any bias on CNN’s part?
To repeat your words back to you,
Pingback: CNN Edits Governor Lingle’s Words to Conceal her Lie and Create their own Lie « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
On 2010/08/06 at 5:55 pm Ryan said
As I pointed out above, you and CNN are twisting words to support your conspiracy.
But I’d really like to thank you for bringing this to my attention. It’s really quite educational to show other people a specific example of how the so-called “Mainstream Media” (MSM) is distorting things to advance their agenda.
The hits today on my new post are in the four figures. Not massive, but the word is getting out. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.
Obama’s “Birther” Strategy Has Backfired
Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!
“GUESS WHAT?
My COLB (that contains the exact same information as Obama’s) was rejected. I got a letter from the State Department stating that they would need my long-form in order to get a passport.”
Not at all… just got a passport in 2007 using the Cert of Live Birth. Ya lyin’ through ya teeth.
There are regulations concerning the seal that should be on any COLB that was actually issued by the State of Hawaii:
At long last, a copy of the Hawaii Department of Health seal has been disclosed by the department directly. And this seal is consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.
But guess what? The “seal” on the “COLB” that was produced at and by the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago does NOT match the seal that was released directly from Hawaii, and the “Obama COLB seal” is NOT consistent with the description of the seal in the Title 11-1 Administrative rules.
The pResident is a fraud and usurper.
Pingback: Barry Belongs in Gitmo! « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
Here’s another contrapositive:
————————————————————————————————————
A = natural born citizen
B = someone who needs the the 14th amendment to be considered a citizen at birth.
“NOT” can be expressed as !, ~, or ¬.
I’ll use ! below.
————————————————————————————————————
Per the Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett,
(A implies NOT B)
The SCOTUS ruled that Minor did NOT need the 14th Amendment (!B) because minor was a natural born citizen (A).
The Contrapositive is:
Someone who needs the the 14th amendment to be considered a citizen at birth (B), is NOT a natural born citizen (!A).
Read that again.
Someone who needs the the 14th amendment to be considered a citizen at birth (B), is NOT a natural born citizen (!A).
————————————————————————————————————
Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama II, whose campaign web site (http://www.fightthesmears.com) initially claimed Obama “became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”:
But then they scrubbed that text and replaced it with this:
Why did Obama’s campaign initially take a “14th Amendment” defense, but then scrub all references to the 14th Amendment?
I submit that it is becuase they discovered that per the Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is born in the country to parents who are its citizens, and a natural born citizen does not need the 14th amendment to be considered a US citizen at birth.
Obama was not born to two US citizen parents, is not a natural born citizen, and must rely on the 14th Amendment in order to claim US citizenship at birth.
But again, someone who must rely on the 14th Amendment is someone who is NOT a natural born citizen.
I’d like for the Obama-supporting commenters here to each provide their best explanation for why the Obama campaign scrubbed the reference to the 14th Amendment on http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
The links from this post to paths under http://users.csc.tntech.edu/~srini/DM are now returning 404 errors, so I’ll need to update this post.
In the meantime, here is a link with similar information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
Repeating for emphasis:
Someone who needs the the 14th amendment to be considered a citizen at birth (B), is NOT a natural born citizen (!A).
As I said On July 19th, 2011,
Natural born citizen is a subset of born citizen, which is a subset of citizen.
( ( (natural) born) citizen)
The Supreme Court in Minor set the precedent by echoing Vattel’s words and saying that that was the founder’s understanding of the Article II Section 1 term “natural born citizen”.
The Court in Minor acknowledged two different classes within the group “born citizens”.
The Court in Minor acknowledged that Minor was a “natural born citizen”.
The Court in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark was a “born citizen”, but never said he was a “natural born citizen”.
You presumably acknowledge the boundary between the group “born citizen” and “citizen”… You presumably acknowledge that “citizen” is a superset that includes both “born citizen” and “naturalized citizen”.
You fail to acknowledge the boundary between the group “natural born citizen” and “born citizen”… You fail to acknowledge that “born citizen” is a superset that includes both “natural born citizen” and “14th Amendment born citizen”.
If you are right and I am wrong, please show me where the Court called Wong Kim Ark a “natural born citizen”.
Of all of the people living in this country…
… a subset of those are here legally…
… a subset of those are citizens…
… a subset of those are born citizens…
… a subset of those are natural born citizens.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Minor vs. Happersett, directly construed the Article II Section 1 phrase “natural born citizen” as persons born in the United States to parents who were citizens.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of US v. Wong Kim Ark, directly construed the 14th Amendment and included those born on U.S. soil, to permanently-domiciled non-citizen parents, as born citizens, but it did not call them natural born citizens (in fact, it diferentiated between them and natural born citizens by saying that the first is every bit as much a CITIZEN as the second) and the Wong Kim Ark ruling did not alter the ruling in Minor.
A natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens.
Both Jindal and Rubio were born on U.S. soil to non-U.S.citizen parents.
Both Jindal and Rubio were born U.S. citizens, but they are not natural born citizens.
Neither is eligible to hold the office of President or Vice-President.