Obama Anti-Catholic Edicts = Nazi S.S.Tactics?

Something Old is Something New Again

Recently I was scanning some old documents into my computer that my father had stored away at the time he had died in 1980.  I found a copy of an Indiana newspaper, the South Bend News-Times, Friday, July 26, 1935 which had this story buried deep among other daily newspaper articles on the page. In fact, it showed how passive and disinterested the U.S. readers were prior to WW2 to get involved with other countries' politics, let alone read about it.  So accordingly,  the editors put it on page two!

The article, "Nazi Police Clamp New Lid on Catholic Youths", was written by Pierre John Huss (1903-1966) who was a journalist and author, best known as a war correspondent during World War II. Huss was the best qualified to report and write this article too.

Huss was for many years chief International News Service (INS) correspondent in Berlin. He was part of an overseas reporting staff assembled by Edward R. Murrow in March 1938 for what was the first in what became the daily CBS World News Roundup broadcasts.

Eger, Czech Rep. - Greet German Soldiers 1938The phrase "peace for our time" was spoken on September 30, 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration. Less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Germany and its invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

John Huss interviewed Adolf Hitler multiple times during the 1930s and 1940s, and wrote Heil! And Farewell: The Foe We Face in 1942, the same year he won a National Headliner Award.

Edward R. Murrow (1908-1965), for those too young to remember him, was a renowned newsman who was considered one of journalism's greatest figures, noting his honesty and integrity in delivering the news. Today, there are no real journalists like Murrow, who was a hard hitting interviewer that evolved into becoming one the forefathers of broadcast journalism.

Read the article well to digest what happened - Why Not Here & Now too?

Foreshadowing iron-fisted suppression of all Catholic activities in Germany Heinrich Himmler, "Chief of the Nazi Secret Police,  issued a drastic new set of regulations curbing their rights and privileges."  Hitler began enacting laws restricting movement of funds making it impossible for German Catholics to send money to missionaries, for instance, restricting religious institutions and education, and mandating attendance at Hitler Youth functions held on Sunday mornings to interfere with Church attendance.

Obamacare On Demand Abortion Program

Political pundit and journalist, Michelle Malkin, in a well written column had this to say about recent events in Washington, DC this week, in January 2012, seventy-seven years since the South Bend News-Times article:  

"President Obama and his radical feminist enforcers have had it in for Catholic medical providers from the get-go. It's about time all people of faith fought back against this unprecedented encroachment on religious liberty.  First, they came for the Catholics. Who's next?"

"This weekend, Catholic bishops informed parishioners of the recent White House edict forcing religious hospitals, schools, charities and other health and social service providers to provide "free" abortifacient pills, sterilizations and contraception on demand in their insurance plans — even if it violates their moral consciences and the teachings of their churches."

"NARAL, NOW, Ms. Magazine and the Feminist Majority Foundation all cheered the administration's abuse of the Obamacare law to ram abortion down pro-life medical professionals' throats. Femme dinosaur Eleanor Smeal gloated over the news that the administration had rejected church officials' pleas for compromises: "At last," she exulted, the left's goal of "no-cost birth control" for all had been achieved."

Mitt, His Father's Son - George Romney

Vetting

George W. Romney

to evaluate

Willard Mitt Romney

Father & Son - Seattle World Fair 1964Fortunately I can remember the early sixties quite well since I was a teenager, actively participating in the Republican Party and attending various rallies and events. As a member of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) group, I supported Barry Goldwater's Presidential run in his 1964 loss.  Next, I was supporting Richard Nixon's 1968 election bid. Historically, it turned out to be a checkered Presidential tenure with the Watergate Scandal and resigning the presidency.

Mitt Romney 2012 CampaignI clearly recall when I first saw George Romney on television and heard his political views in 1967.  I listened carefully to his speeches and was not impressed with George Romney's very moderate, middle-of-the-road, politically-correct posture with lackluster ideas delivered in a campaign monotone. George Romney plainly was not a conservative! ...Is Mitt?

Read below about George Romney's business and political careers.  Do you see any patterns here?

Governor George Wilcken Romney Biography

"George W. Romney joined Nash-Kelvinator in 1948, and became chairman and CEO of its successor, Gov. George RomneyAmerican Motors Corporation in 1954. There he turned around the struggling firm by focusing all efforts on the smaller Rambler car."

George Romney with 1959 Rambler Sedan"George W. Romney entered politics by participating in a state convention to rewrite in 1961–1962 the State of Michigan Constitution. He was elected Governor of Michigan in 1962 and was re-elected by increasingly large margins in 1964 and 1966. Romney worked to overhaul the state's financial and revenue structure, culminating in Michigan's first state income tax, and greatly expanded the size of state government. He represented moderate Republicans against conservative Republican Barry Goldwater during the 1964 U.S. presidential election. Romney was a strong supporter of the American Civil Rights Movement while governor.  He requested the intervention of federal troops during the 1967 Detroit riot."

"Romney's wide margin of re-election as Michigan Governor in November 1966 thrust him to the forefront of national Republicans. In addition to his political record, the tall, square-jawed, handsome, graying Romney matched what the public thought a president should look like. Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968.  The techniques that had brought Romney victories in Michigan, such as operating outside established partisan formulas and keeping a distance from Republican Party organizational elements, proved ineffective in a party nominating contest."

President Nixon & Governor Romney"The qualities that helped Romney as an industry executive also worked against him as a presidential candidate; he had difficulty being articulate, often speaking at length and too forthrightly on a topic and then later correcting himself while maintaining he was not, flip-flopper here? Life Magazine said, "The real George Romney let loose to ramble, inevitably away from the point and toward some distant moral precept." The Baltimore Sun reporter, Jack Germond, joked that he was going to add a single key on his typewriter that would print, "Romney later explained...." The perception grew that Romney was gaffe-prone and an oaf; his campaign also was beset by internal rivalries. While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and soon fell behind Nixon who already was overtaking Romney in Gallup's Republican preference poll."

"Romney's greatest weakness was a lack of foreign policy expertise. Following a mid-1967 remark that his earlier support for the Vietnam War had been due to a "brainwashing" by U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Vietnam during a 1965 Governors' Tour. Democrat Senator Eugene McCarthy, running for the Democratic nomination, said that in Romney's case, "a light rinse would have been sufficient." Romney's campaign faltered even more, and he finally withdrew from the contest in early 1968." 

Richard Nixon went on to win the 1968 Presidential election against Vice President Hubert Humphries, under President Lyndon Johnson, in a very tight race, only 500,000 votes separated the opponents. Nixon won that election by only one percent of the popular vote.

Mitt: Is This Like Father, Like Son?

How Josef Stalin Sees 2012 U.S. Elections

Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin at the ballot box  “You know, comrades,” says Josef Stalin in 1923, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how." – Boris Bazhanov, "Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary", published 1992.

Josef Stalin's chilling assessment in 1923 about the process of voting is way too true today even 90 years later, he since died on March 5, 1953.  The question goes on about who will vote and how while the other issue is about who will count the votes and how.  

This assessment of voting was made by a brute mass murderer. Josef Stalin was a Russian Communist, Totalitarian, Dictator who ruled with an iron fist of power over a society chained to a stuffed ballot that only elected the Communist party line officials. 

Under Communism, "collectivization" is the process of conversion of small private farms and livestock into giant collective farms. The Soviet Government could not control the independent farmers in the Ukraine region of Russia. In 1932, they were in a position living on their own farms far away from the Kremlin to disregard the Soviet system. So, a coverup was carefully organized by Stalin's Kremlin and the Ukraine's borders were sealed tight by the Red Army and the Soviet Secret Police. Moscow banned all travel by foreigners in Ukraine and especially all foreign correspondents.  The massive planned starvation killings, executions and exiles to Siberia began as their farms and livestock were taken by the Russian Communist State Government.

Stalin at the peak of the genocide, which was in March 1933 according to historians, Ukrainians were dying at the rate of 25,000 per day, 1,000 per hour or 17 every minute. Estimates of the total deaths vary from 5 to 10 million but 7 million deaths is the accepted figure. This was almost one-quarter of the population of Ukraine.  Stalin conducted a huge cover-up and keep from the world this genocide just when Hitler was coming into power during the 1930s himself. Ironically, in 1941, when Germany invaded Russia, Stalin joined the US and its allies to stave off the German march to Moscow to save his Communist regime.  History reports that Stalin did not admit the Urkrainan Holocost until the end of WW2 when he spoke to Winston Churchill about how he killed more Urkraines than Germans, sick stuff.

 The Vote - Who & How

Today I find the whole voter ID Card issue rather beside the point in our computerized age of "Cloud Computing" that can easily handle voter registration verification ID and voter choices tabulations simultaneously.  But until we are up and running in the cyber world, I still  have to show my photo ID when I return items to the store, when I go to the library to check out books, when I buy medicine at the local pharmacy, when I board an airplane, when I get a senior discount at the local theatre or restaurant, and often nowadays, when I buy things with my credit card and even when the police just simply ask for it.  My younger adult children have to show a Driver's License when they purchase wine or tobacco, go to a casino or go to clubs and for rated R movies too. Why shouldn’t we have to show a Photo ID card to avoid voter ballot fraud when we fulfill our civic duty to vote?

Many Liberals, however, applaud Eric Holder for trying toWho needs a Photo ID when you have a Voter Registration Card? invalidate lawsuits that allegedly suppress voters that ask voters to prove that they are eligible to vote.  Holder seems to think that voter fraud isn’t an issue, even though experience makes it clear that it is. Eight states now require state-issued identification at the polls, but Mr. Holder has put them on notice, worried that these states might violate the Federal Voting Rights Act.

Asking voters for driver’s licenses or state ID cards may apparently disenfranchise many homeless people even when their states offer to give them a tamper-proof state I.D. card for free when they have no car and driver's license. The Florida Senator Democrat, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, actually compares these Voter ID bills to modern-day Jim Crow Laws.  Debbie refers to the old racial, prejudicial voter and polling Jim Crow laws prevalent in the South until the laws were overturned by the 1960's voters' legislation.

I have one question for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Eric Holder:  How do these people get through their daily life without a Photo ID card for buying basic goods and handling services like prescription medicine, banking transactions, doctor check-in or hospital admissions, employee ID for job hiring and programs for government assistance? Then, are these people the "informed voters", "jury peers", "fellow citizens" and "paying taxpayers" who are engaged and interested in civic community choices, policy matters, infrastructure building bonds and local or national elected officials? ...Yeah, right!  ...and more than likely could just vote for the named party-line officials whose workers drove them to the polls or gave them food or drink and just forget the rest of the junk on the ballot?

The Vote Count - Who & How

"For the first time, in the 2008 Mid-Term Elections, some form of electronic voting machine will tally ballots in all 50 states. This new digital democracy is the culmination of the federal 2002 Help America Vote Act — a nearly $4 billion upgrade of voting machines approved after the disastrous 2000 Florida presidential election, which infamously left the fate of our country literally hanging by a chad.

The new computers are designed to count votes faster and more accurately than the clunky old levered, punch card and butterfly ballot machines. And laudably, they will make it easier for tens of thousands of disabled voters to cast ballots. But the new electronic voting, or e-voting, machines also have raised as many questions as they have answered. And they all boil down to the very definition of a democracy: How can the public be sure that each vote counts?

The e-voting machines’ inherent lack of transparency and vulnerability to hackers, as demonstrated by Gonggrijp and other activists, led three European governments to warehouse tens of millions of dollars worth of computerized voting machines. As of last year, citizens in Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands are now back to using what former Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern once referred to derisively as “stupid old pencils.”

The United States, of course, has taken a different tack. In spite of the flaws exposed by U.S.-based hackers and activists — groups such as Black Box Voting and Verified Voting — states here continued a spending spree on e-voting machines. And they did so unencumbered by federal oversight. As of now, there is no federal body monitoring problems with e-voting machines."

Larry Norden, a scholar of voting technology at New York University’s law school, finds it implausible that the same federal government that monitors consumer goods like baby powder and automobiles is asking us to blindly trust e-voting machines. “I think it’s outrageous,” he said. “To me, there’s no explanation for why we regulate toasters so much more thoroughly than we do a voting machine. This is our democracy. There are few things more important than voting and making sure that all votes are counted accurately.”[i]

---

[i] The Vote Count - Who & How section attributes credit to:  "Das Vote" - Dan Rather October 26, 2010 - an excerpt from a programming snopsis that was extremely concise and well written.

 

The Real Deal: FDR vs. BHO Spending Programs

The Museum of American Finance, N.Y.C. - "Checks & Balance" (Exhibit on display through November 2012)

This review, by Mark Yost, a Chicago writer appearing in the Wall Street Journal today, is about a current New York City exhibit which illustrates FDR history as it happened, not as rewritten by Liberal Progressives:

1930 FDR Depression Era Bread Line"President Roosevelt had the unfettered federal hand that many would like to see Barack Obama have today. But as the exhibit makes clear, Roosevelt's massive federal spending and panoply, or dazzling display, of make-work programs during the Depression did little to improve the economy; only World War II turned things around. Unemployment was 25% in 1932 and still at 19% in 1938. It fell to 10% in 1941 because of jobs created for the  Lend-Lease Program,[1] declined further after the U.S. sent troops into battle, and by the war's end stood at 2%."

"And while Roosevelt is often praised as a champion of the working class, in 1942 he lowered the threshold for exemption from federal income tax to $500 from $750 and added a victory tax for annual incomes above $624 a year. The average American income was about $1,200; a teacher made about $1,400." 

Roosevelt's highly advertised "progressive tax" rates really hit the middle class in their pocketbooks by FDR lowering the tax exemption to get more taxes and adding a WW2 Victory Tax on top of the middle class taxpayers too. You never hear about this story ever from the liberals of today about "FDR's unfair income tax" programs. Isn't it about time for Obama to lower the income tax exemptions like Roosevelt did then to distribute the costs of government more fairly over the middle class in order for them to start paying taxes for what people demand collectively? The Obama myth of the "rich should pay their fair share in taxes" has no truth because they already do. As young middle class people will learn, everything that big government promises has a price that they will pay, not the so-called rich. Class warfare is nothing but a Socialist tool under big government rule. 

---

[1] The Lend-Lease was the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, Free France, and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 but nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941. Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality.