Posted by: Debby Durkee | March 27, 2010

History reflected in present actions.

Debby's Web Finds
History reflected in present actions.

With the passing of the health care bill this past week using what looks to be immoral and perhaps illegal means to do so, and the simultaneous vilifying of the Tea Partiers and conservative Republicans, many are seeing a repeat from the not too distant past.

Anniversary of Hitler’s Enabling Act.

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, so this is a post for a historical perspective. No one is saying that Obama is Hitler, and no one is saying that Congress is like Germany’s Reichstag of 1933, but human beings are human beings. We are in uncharted waters in this country, so it’s a good idea to see where an out-of-control governing body can end up. Keep in mind that Venezuela was once a democratic country, and it has been used and abused by Hugo Chavez. In 12 short years, Chavez has brought his country down from a thriving country with a Constitution to a struggling socialist (Marxist? Communist? – not sure) country, a country praised for its “revolution” by Obama’s FCC “Diversity Czar” Mark Lloyd.

Keep in mind recent attacks on conservatives as you are reading, specifically the Tea Partiers and the Republican leadership over the past week. Democrats and their media allies are basically trying to set them up as racists or scary people who are out to threaten or harm Democrats after the passage of the health care bill.  This is from the blogger

Commenter Artfldgr, our resident historian, has reminded us that yesterday (March 23) was the anniversary of the Enabling Act in Germany, 1933. The Act (the full name of which can be translated as the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation”) helped solidify Hitler’s dictatorial powers.

With everyone thinking of health care as the Holy Grail of progressive/leftist ideology, some believe that the passage of this health care reform bill is solidification of leftist power in government for many years to come. (I’m not sure I believe that yet, but that’s part of the discussion.) They make many references in this posting to the Reichstag Fire in Germany in 1933 as the event that helped to establish Hitler’s Germany. The Reichstag was the German Parliament. It was set on fire in February after Hitler’s election four weeks previously. The Communist Party was blamed and vilified and Hitler convinced the parliament that communists were trying to overthrow his election. All of the Communist Party members of the Parliament were arrested, which left Hitler’s party in charge. You can read more about the Reichstag Fire here: But continuing on with the original post..

…Hitler was able to use parliamentary means and wheeling and dealing to gain control of Germany’s Parliament, even though he did not have enough support there initially, and get that body to vote for its own abolition and to place legislative powers in the hands of the executive branch.     

The Enabling Act allowed the cabinet to enact legislation, including laws deviating from or altering the constitution, without the consent of the Reichstag. Because this law allowed for departures from the constitution, it was itself considered a constitutional amendment and thus its adoption required a two-thirds majority, with at least two-thirds of deputies attending the session.

The Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) were expected to vote against the Act. The government had already arrested all Communist and some Social Democrat deputies under the Reichstag Fire Decree

Hitler believed that with the Centre Party members’ votes, he would get the necessary two-thirds majority. Hitler negotiated with the Centre Party’s chairman, Ludwig Kaas, a Catholic priest, finalizing an agreement by March 22. Kaas agreed to support the Act in exchange for assurances of the Centre Party’s continued existence, the protection of Catholics’ civil and religious liberties, religious schools and the retention of civil servants affiliated with the Centre Party…

See if this doesn’t sound exactly like something that has just happened to win over either the unwilling or the “unwilling to look won over.”

Debate within the Centre Party continued until the day of the vote, March 23, 1933, with Kaas advocating voting in favour of the act, referring to an upcoming written guarantee from Hitler, while former Chancellor Heinrich Brüning called for a rejection of the Act. The majority sided with Kaas, and Brüning agreed to maintain party discipline by voting for the Act.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats initially planned to hinder the passage of the Act by boycotting the Reichstag session, rendering that body short of the quorum (two thirds) needed to vote on a constitutional amendment. The Reichstag, however, led by its President, Hermann Göring, changed its rules of procedure, allowing the President to declare that any deputy who was “absent without excuse” was to be considered as present, in order to overcome obstructions. Because of this procedural change, the Social Democrats were obliged to attend the session, and committed to voting against the Act.

Kaas never received the promised letter from Hitler. Does this seem eerily familiar? Stupak gets an executive order saying there will not be funding in the health care bill for abortions, but didn’t seem to understand that a law trumps an executive order. Among threats and intimidation, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, similar to the way our Congress used threats and intimidation to pass health care.            

…Within three months after the passage of the Enabling Act, all parties except the Nazi Party were banned or pressured into dissolving themselves, followed on July 14 by a law that proscribed the founding of political parties. With this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: “I set for myself one aim … to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!”

Due to the great care that Hitler took to give his dictatorship an appearance of legality, the Enabling Act was renewed twice, in 1937 and 1941. In 1942, the Reichstag passed a law giving Hitler power of life and death over every citizen, effectively extending the provisions of the Enabling Act for the duration of the war. It was finally renewed indefinitely in 1943 “by order of the Führer.”

Please read it all here:

Black conservative vs. Shuster.

Would you like to see a black conservative Tea Party member standing up to MSNBC’s David Shuster? Well, check out this brief video of Kevin Jackson. It’s refreshing to hear a black man remind a lefty Dem about the fact that it was Democrats who hung blacks from trees. Scroll about half way down the page.

Mr. Jackson blogs at

Hat Tip:

The “race card” players.

Michele Malkin points out how apparently winning by passing Obama’s health care bill isn’t enough. They know they really can’t win the argument with the Tea Partiers and the Republicans calling for repeal of the bill using facts, so they’ll use a favorite Alinsky tactic: calling their opponents names. (Pick the target, freeze it, polarize it.) Well, we’re on to their game, and the Tea Parties have been demonized since their inception, so it won’t work.

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health care “reform” victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there’s a Tea Party epidemic of racism, harassment and violence against them.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen accused Republican leaders of “stoking the flames.” Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting” what he called “terrorism.”

Yet, the claims that Tea Party activists shouted “nigger” at black House Democrats remain uncorroborated. The coffin reportedly left outside Missouri Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan’s home was used in a prayer vigil by pro-life activists in St. Louis protesting the phony Demcare abortion-funding ban in Obama’s deal-cutting executive order. Videotape of a supposed intentional spitting incident targeting Missouri Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver at the Capitol shows no such thing. Cleaver himself backed off the claim a few days later. He described his heckler to The Washington Post in more passive terms as “the man who allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Slovenliness equals terrorism!

The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation — that Tea Party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the Tea Party reign of terror.

Malkin goes on to point out other instances in the past where Democrats have accused Republicans and/or conservatives of things Democratic operatives actually did.

Just as evidence of how the Democrats and their allies try to instigate things, just allow me a brief personal experience. The last Tea Party I attended was just a couple of weeks ago in Wilmington, NC. We were on one side of the street (nice-sized group for a last minute protest in front of where our Senator Kay Hagan was to speak). Well, SEIU had their  protestors across the street, a small group with ready-made signs. One guy insisted on being on our side of the street, within our group, holding his “Health Care Now!” sign. We tried to get him to leave, but he knew that we were polite protestors, so he had nothing to fear — but if he could just get us mad and something could be caught on video, well that would be a win.

Finally, the police came over and escorted him over to the other side where he belonged — although later he was back again. It’s obvious that they intend to invade our protesting space in order to provoke something. They intend to instigate.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there weren’t ringers in the Tea Party protest in front of the capitol the other day. If there was any hollering out of “racist” comments, it was done by the Democrats. We know how they work.

I mean why did the Dems stroll through the protestors? Isn’t there any other way to get into the House other than the (I believe) West lawn where the Tea Partiers were protesting? The Dems weren’t afraid. They wanted to lord in front of the protestors to display their version of, “Let them eat cake.” They wanted to invade the Tea Partiers’ space in order to provoke. They wanted to instigate something, and if they couldn’t instigate something, they would just make it up. This is what we have to fight.

Please read all of Michele Malkin here:


Breitbart offers $10,000 for proof.

Andrew Breitbart of  tells the Democrats to put their money where their mouth is, or rather he’s telling them to prove their allegations, and he’ll give money to the United Negro College Fund. Read it here:


Bookmark and Share


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: