Stop lying about the Nuremberg Laws!
Transcripts from the September 18, 1935 broadcast of The Paddy O’Reilly Radio Hour:
O’REILLY: Joining us tonight to discuss the Nuremberg Laws that’s got liberals in such an uproar is conservative commentator Abigail Coulter. Now, Abigail, is the left just making a big thing about nothing?
COULTER: Oh, my God — I’ve never seen so much lying in my life. Have liberals even bothered to read these laws? There’s nothing in them about hurting Jews. It’s all about protecting Germans. For years there’s been a Jewish problem over there that everyone’s ignored. Finally, the Nazis come and do something about it, by enacting some rather modest laws, in my opinion; and the left, of course, overreacts. Can you believe some are actually comparing the Nazis to Cossacks?
O’REILLY: Nothing but pinheads, I agree.
Latest posts by Colin Cohen (Posts)
- Turkey stands against tyranny - July 5, 2010
- Afghanistan is all Obama’s fault - July 2, 2010
- Would a drilling agency by another name smell as bad? - June 23, 2010
- For Neda - June 13, 2010
- Helen Thomas’s new job - June 8, 2010
Print This Post
On this one I must disagree.
The government is supposed to provide law and order, correct?
The reverse of law and order is anarchy, a state in which there exists no freedom. Much like what the citizens who live on the border experience when they can’t go to the movies or the mall because they must sit at home with their guns protecting their property.
Or the rancher who is gunned down as he strolls along on his property.
Or the women who have been raped, the children killed.
There was no freedom, no protection, for these people, these American citizens.
In light of that, do you think it’s fair that they should have to keep on paying taxes to a government which has abdicated its lone ethical and moral responsibility to its citizens?
If the government won’t stand up for you when it should, why do you have to support, or care, what said government thinks?
The funny part is that if the Federal Government moves officials/officers/military in to put a stop to this, they’ll be giving Arizona what it wants, an increased level of Federal action in the regulating of illegals. If they don’t move in officers and officials, Arizona won’t stop going after these illegals.
The part that is travesty is that it would be so easy to solve this problem if the politicians simply put an end to the War on Drugs that are funding these foreign, criminal elements.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin.
It would be one thing if Arizona were to say that they were gonna unilaterally secure their border. But to stop people if they look like they might be illegal is reprehensible.
I get often mistaken as Hispanic. Once I got frisked by cops just because they had an anonymous tip about a Hispanic guy wielding a gun. I had no gun, of course. I just looked Hispanic to them and that was sufficient.
Ask yourself how would you feel if you were a Hispanic citizen from Arizona and were constantly harassed by the police for no reason.
One injustice never justifies another.
I agree with you on the drugs part. Although it might solve the entire problem.
@ Mr. Cohen
The law does not make lack of citizenship a primary offense.
They have to pull you over for something else before they can ask you to prove your legality.
If they pull over a van 30 miles from the border which has been speeding and there are fifteen people in the van, none of whom speak English, nor have any form of ID, well, to me it is reasonable to question their citizenship, not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
They could pull you over (or stop you) for almost anything. There are so many obscure laws that we are are almost always either in violation or can be “reasonably” suspected to be violating.
There was a very telling interview given by that jackass Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I think it’s on youtube. He pretty much stated that he intended to use this ability to crack down on illegals.
Again, if you want to secure the border, secure the border. But leave innocent people alone. And don’t give police even more power.
On a side note, it’s funny how this post is automatically generating so many Ann Coulter ads. I count three at this particular moment.
Also, as was in my case, they could stop a Hispanic if they just happen to be looking for a Hispanic suspect.
How often do you think that at least someone of Hispanic origin is being sought in relation to a crime in Arizona?
I’d guess pretty often, if not always.
All I was doing was walking down the street, acting quite unsuspiciously. If this happened in Arizona and I didn’t have an ID on me, I could’ve been arrested.
Which means that Hispanics, in effect, will have to carry identification papers with them at all times. Just like in a police state.
Use laws currently on the books to arrest, prosecute and jail the large and small business people who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
These employers often pay very low wages, no benefits, no payroll or Social Security taxes and sometimes demand kickbacks.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants just want to work. Remove the jobs and they will leave, and new illegal immigrants will not come. That’s what Arizonans (and others) want, right? Do they have the guts to put those business people in jail?
Do you think that self-aggrandizing Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio is willing to arrest some of his Rotary Club buddies?
How happy will those large and small businessmen be after they are stripped of their below-market-cost source of labor? Do you think they’ll thank those who do it for them?
@ Mr. Cohen:
They could pull you over (or stop you) for almost anything. There are so many obscure laws that we are are almost always either in violation or can be “reasonably” suspected to be violating.
This is the tyranny of government and one of the reasons I advocate for smaller government. We should all be capable of knowing the law. It’s the True Scotsman argument.
However, I see no reason why we should extend privlidges and rights to law breakers who aren’t citizens at the expense of the lives and property of our law abiding, tax paying citizens who are crying out for our help.
You’d give rights to the aliens who are not citizens and strip them from the people who are.
That’s not right.
@ Parsifal
How happy will those large and small businessmen be after they are stripped of their below-market-cost source of labor? Do you think they’ll thank those who do it for them?
This is the crux of the problem. People like Harry Reid need all the support they can get this year, so they demonize the People of Arizona for trying to protect their own lives and property while trying to placate the people who aren’t in danger so as to win reelection.
The Federal Government has a Constitutional duty to protect against invasion, and if the actions of the drug runners, kidnappers, and thieves on the border don’t qualify as invaders, I don’t know what does.
It is not permissible for innocent American citizens to have to live in fear for their lives so politicians in New York, Nevada, Michigan, or Ohio can try to get votes from people not directly in danger.
Mike,
It’s easy to be libertarian (which I believe is what you consider yourself) when it’s only about protecting liberties that affect you directly. The hard part is defending other people’s liberties, especially when those liberties come in conflict with your beliefs and desires.
If your last name was “Menendez” instead of “McGowan” you’d likely have a very different view of this law.
I’m not trying to extend any liberties. I’m trying to keep the ones we already (should) have.
And what rights am I trying to strip away? The stripping of rights seems to be coming strictly from your side of the argument.
@ Mr. Cohen
And what rights am I trying to strip away?
The right of the people who live on the border to not have to sit at home with loaded guns to protect their property and lives from the illegals pouring over the border.
You can go to the mall, the movies, the skating rink, and reasonably expect to come home to a safe, secure environment. Why shouldn’t they have the same rights and expectations as you do? Are they somehow less entitled to those expectation than you simply because of where they live?
You state that if my last name was Hispanic and not Irish, I’d have a different view. That may be true, but the same can be said of you.
If you lived on the border and were under direct threat from armed drug smugglers, maybe you’d have a very different view of this law? The vast majority of the people in AZ who live under these conditions are in favor of it, why is it such a stretch to think that if we lived there we wouldn’t also be in favor of it?
If it was your family in danger, under constant threat, maybe you’d be more willing to ignore PC to protect your life and property from the hordes or illegals flooding through your front yard?
I’m not for cracking down on legal, law abiding people. I’m arguing that we, as the United States, have a Constitutional duty to help our fellow Americans live lives of reasonable safety when they are faced with possible assault from armed thugs who have no intention of becoming American citizens.
Do you disagree?
To continue:
It’s easy to be libertarian (which I believe is what you consider yourself) when it’s only about protecting liberties that affect you directly. The hard part is defending other people’s liberties, especially when those liberties come in conflict with your beliefs and desires.
What about defending the liberties of the legal American citizens who have been kidnapped, murdered, and raped?
You are ignoring their plight to be pro-PC…
As I’ve said many times in this thread, I’m not opposed to securing the border. And if these border towns require more policing authority to protect lives and property, then by all means do so.
But why should some Hispanic citizen in, for example, Flagstaff (far off from the border) have to live in fear every time he steps out of his house?
And how is harassing this guy gonna prevent violence on the border?
@ Mr. Cohen
And how is harassing this guy gonna prevent violence on the border?
Sir, not to be snarky, but harrassed is when the cop slams you up against the wall for looking at him funny then beats the tar out of you for no reason and doesn’t book you.
A cop asking a person without a driver’s license, who speaks no English, for their green card isn’t harrassment.
Seriously, the law specifically details that a driver’s license is good enough.
You have to show your driver’s license to a bartender before you get a drink.
That’s not harrassment, and if it means that we can slow down the slave trade, or prevent a couple of children from being murdered, well, I don’t see it as unreasonable either.
Are there better ways to go about it? Sure.
But no one is else has been willing to lend a hand, and none of these other ideas have been tried. So when the citizens of the State of Arizona got tired of their pleas falling on deaf ears, and stopped uselessly asking for our help, they had to resort to more “harsh” tactics, if you want to claim that showing your ID to a cop is harsh, to get the job done.
It’s like the inverse of “many hands make light work”.
The State of Arizona can’t end the war on drugs, they can’t seal off the border without the Federal military. What else were they supposed to do?
Their citizens are crying out for aid. Have been for years. I’m glad someone has finally listened.
The harassment is being stopped by the police for no real reason, which Arpaio admitted he will do.
But don’t worry, he won’t do it to anyone who looks like you.
However, don’t forget that it wasn’t too long ago that your ancestors were the object of anti-immigrant hatred.
And why can’t the Arizona state police or guard patrol the perimeter of the border? If I remember correctly either McCain or Kyl was talking about doing something just like that once.
I think they chose this method because it was cheaper.
@ Mr. Cohen
If they’d chosen a different method, a more expensive method, the old people’s Medicaid would have to get cut.
They’re out of money. The Federal Government is out of money. They’re making do with what they have.
Look at it this way: Cops probably solve about 15%-20% of the total crimes committed, and that’s anywhere in the US.
http://crime.about.com/b/2004/11/06/less-than-half-of-2003-crimes-solved.htm
There aren’t an awful lot of cops out there, per capita, you know?
In Houghton, MI, where I got my undergrad, the county only had 3 officers on duty in the entire county after 8 PM. For the whole county.
It’s not like these guys are resting on their laurels by solving such a small percentage of crimes, but there is so much crime, and so few police, that there is no feasible way for them to solve every crime. Thus, they focus on the big ticket items like murder, theft, rape, LARGE quanities of drugs, etc. They’re not going to spend their whole day just posted on some dusty two lane in the middle of the desert, waiting for the lone Hispanic looking dude to come walking by without his ID so they can throw him to the ground and rough him up, Bull Conor style.
It’s not like this law is going to have Geraldo thrown up against the wall by black suited G-Men and hauled bodily out of the country.
You’re making this sound much worse than it really is.
If the illegal alien is involved in a fight outside of a bar, and the police break it up and ask him for his ID, he should have it, right? He would have had to use it to get into the bar… That’s what this law is aiming to do. Target those people, not some guy working his arse off to provide for a wife and a couple of kids.
Those people don’t come into contact with the police on the daily, yo.