East Germany also solved that pesky "democracy" problem

OK, it’s going from sublime to rediculous, or maybe rediculous to rediculouser, take ur pick.

First Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell says the First Amendment doesn’t separate Church from State, which is silly enough, since there isn’t a document anywhere in the country more unambiguous than the First Amendment. But now that nut Joe Miller in Alaska, the one who wants to cut Alaska off the federal gravy train (and I’m not for one second saying that is a bad idea) wants to bring back the good old days — or should I say Gute Alte Tage? — of the East German Iron Curtain/Berlin  Wall.

Yeah, those were the day. Ah, the nostalgia!

Seriously. Here’s the report (click) He says those East Germans sure knew how to secure a border. Well, yeah, and Ronald Reagan told them to tear the wall down. What next, change the National Anthem to “America, America Uber Alles?”

This reminds me of the time I was having an email discussion with a local otherwise-intelligent-woman who said the way to solve the Mexican border problem was to shoot anyone sneaking across.

“With what?” I asked. “The melted down Statue of Liberty?”

You know, that thing with the “give me your tired, hungry, yearning to breathe free” crap written down on it somewhere. So 19th Century.

The East German border included automatic machine guns and mine fields.  I’m sure, if Miller asks, a retired member of the Stasi (East Germany’s version of the Gestapo) will be happy to come out of retirement and consult.

Channeling East Germany fits right in. Newt Gingrich wants the US to adopt the religions principles of Saudi Arabia (remember he said we’ll allow mosques when they allow synagogues?) and God only knows what O’Donnell wants. She claims she’s not a witch, but Nixon claimed he wasn’t a crook and we know how that turned out.

This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to East Germany also solved that pesky "democracy" problem

  1. Al says:

    Miller also employs active-duty military personnel as his campaign security, and they in turn think it’s just fine to forcibly detain pesky reporters at campaign events. Makes you wonder if all these Constitutional zealots have actually read the damn thing.

  2. MacDaddy says:

    A socialist dope like you would turn this country into what was East Germany.

    You show me and Christine where in the Constitution it says “Seperation of church and state.” Can’t do it can you? That is because it doesn’t say it. That statement was made by Thomas Jefferson when he was president.
    That is what Christine was alluding to. Ignorant liberal twerps are too dense to understant the point she was making.

  3. Owain says:

    Joe Millers security detail thinks it’s fine to detain reporters when they commit assault.

    There is a difference.


    “Miller said that Alaska Dispatch staffer Tony Hopfinger followed him into the bathroom at the event and that he later disobeyed multiple requests to leave after the event.”

    “Members of Miller’s security team apprehended Hopfinger, accusing him of trespassing and assaulting a bystander for shoving a security guard.”

    “He was asked to leave, asked to get out of the way. He asked about the Fairbanks North Star Borough thing; I answered one question. He kept at it,” Miller said. “I ended up turning around, going the other way. After I left the building, the security team the contract required us to have there ended up arresting him because he pushed one of their individuals.”

  4. Owain says:

    One problem with your analogy, Charles. The Berlin Wall and the inner German border between East Germany and West Germany was designed to imprison East Germans in East Germany. You didn’t get a whole lot of West Germans trying to sneak into East Germany.

    When we get large numbers of Americans swimming south over the Rio Grande or jumping the fence to sneak into Tiajuana, then you can plausibly compare a fence on our southern border to the Berlin Wall. Until then, your comparison is like so much of what you write. Crap.

  5. Charles Trentelman says:

    Miller wanting to immitate east germany is bad enough — but you also forget that East Germany’s wall and iron curtain really weren’t that effective — the Berlin Wall leaked thousands of people despite being maintained at enormous cost.

    Walls are symbols of repression no matter which way the traffic goes. For more than two centuries the US and Mexico and Canada got by nicely on an agreement to not militarize their borders, both out of practical realities, but also as a visible reassurance that neither side would arm against the other.

    And, as I have asked others: A 2000 mile wall between the US and Mexico would cost billion of dollars both to build and to maintain. Are you willing to raise your taxes enough to pay for that.

    Plus it wouldn’t work. And that doesn’t even begin to count the social or economic costs that nobody is anticipating now.

    And this is the proposal from the fiscal conservatives?

  6. Charles Trentelman says:

    as to whether the words “separation of church and state” are in the Constitution, no they are not.

    But the first amendment could hardly be clearer. If you are unsure what the word “no” means, I would advice you to consult Webster’s finest.

    And T. Jeffferson WAS one of those founding fathers who were (so we are told) God-inspired when they wrote the first amendment. If he didn’t know what he meant, who would?

  7. Michael Johnson says:

    A couple of weeks ago I was talking to olive growers. They use illegals to hand pick those olives you see along with the illegal picked onions on your pizza made with tomatoes cultivated, harvested and processed by illegal workers.

    Illegal immigration would end if you would just stop eating.

  8. Owain says:

    From my understanding of the exchange, O’Donnell was making the point that the first amendment does not guarantee a separation of church and state, but rather the entire issue of separation of church and state arose out of subsequent judicial interpretation of the meaning of the establishment clause contained in the amendment.

    There is a difference between the establishment of an official state religion, such as a Church of England equivalent that the founders sought to prevent, and the current banning of all religions expression from those in government.

    Religious expression from those in government, as a part of government, was common among the founders. So, by your own Jeffersonian example, I imagine that since he did indeed help write the amendment, he would probably stand aghast at how the amendment has subsequently been misapplied.

  9. Owain says:

    I’ve tried to enter this post a couple of times. I forgot that the system blocks posts with multiple links, so excuse the disguised links.

    “ … you also forget that East Germany’s wall and iron curtain really weren’t that effective…”

    Nonsense. The Berlin Wall and the fortification of the inner German border was undertaken to stem the tide of millions that were fleeing East Germany. en-dot-wikipedia-dot-org/wiki/Berlin_wall

    “Before the Wall’s erection, 3.5 million East Germans circumvented Eastern Block emigration restrictions and defected from the GDR, many by crossing over the border from East Berlin into West Berlin, from where they could then travel to West Germany and other Western European countries. Between 1961 and 1989, the wall prevented almost all such emigration. During this period, around 5,000 people attempted to escape over the wall, with estimates of the resulting death toll varying between 100 and 200.”

    Just what is your definition of effective?

    A 2000 mile wall is neither necessary nor required, so that argument is straw man. A physical barrier for high traffic areas would not be a bad idea, however, as demonstrated by the fence separating San Diego and Tijuana. www-dot-npr-dot-org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5323928

    Following construction of that fence, apprehensions “are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.”

    What is most needed is enforcement of existing immigration law, as Arizona is attempting in the face of enforcement failure on the part of the Federal government. That enforcement should consist of a combination of increase patrols, barrier fencing, deportation of identified violators of U.S. immigration law, and sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

    Unless we want Phoenix remain the kidnapping capital of the United States (abcnews-dot-go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1), and further incidences of the murder of U.S. citizens (www-dot-kold-dot-com/Global/story.asp?S=12224521), we need to secure our borders. If that means taxes go up, then taxes go up.

    The security of U.S. citizens trumps fiscal conservatism.

  10. Clarrisa RedDya (LeDeau) says:

    I do not know why people do not educate themselves before either debating an argument or making a \facual\ statement when it comes to this \separation of church and state!!!\ First of all, if the MAJORITY of Americans would read the Constitution of the United States of America, they would find, as. MacDaddy previously posted, IS NOT in it nor is the phrase \separation of church and state\ any kind of law. MacDaddy is partially right in that, yes, it was Thomas Jefferson who had said this, but it was in a letter that he had wriiten explaining what was meant by the phrase, \separation of church and state.\ What he had wriiten in this explanation is entirely different than what people seem to think it means today! The Framers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance knew exactly what they were doing when comprising these ingenius documents. The bottom line of it all was that they did NOT want the \government\ to in any way, shape or form to dictate or interfere in how the poeple worshiped! They wanted at all costs to avoid what King George and the Church of Enland had to them! It was NOT that the \government\ prevent God from being in any part of law making or the prevention of God in schools, or prayer in schools etc. Because how could they do this when the whole reason they were where they were at, was by God’s blessing!

    As a true American Indian, I love my country with all my heart, and knowing what the true history of this country is, it really angers me to see people who are ignorant of what this country was based on in the first place and take a pfalse premise and try to argue it, banking on other people’s ignorance! PEOPLE| KNOW WHAT U ARE REALLY ARGUING ABOUT before making a fool of your self! Also, to those who really do not know what IS IN The Constitution, PLEASE educate yourself so you know what you are about and know what rights we do have AND HAVE ALREADY lost some of those rights and go and VOTE YOUR CONCIENCE! Please! Before it is all gone and your left standing there wondering what happened and how it happened!

    Thank you very much for reading this…

    Clarrisa RedDye (LeDeau)
    Proud to be an American Indian ~:)

  11. MacDaddy says:

    Owain and Clarrisa -

    Excellent posts -

    Unfortunately . . . . .

    Providing facts to Chuckles or any other liberal fool on the editorial board is a total waste of time. They deal in FEELINGS only.

  12. Clarrisa RedDya (LeDeau) says:

    Thank u very much McDaddy! I appreciate the compliment! And you never know, maybe some wil either come away from this with a few more things learned for the day and pique their curiosity enough to go and find out for them selves OR as you say, which is truly sad, go off of their feelings. Geez, can you imagine if the foundong fathers did that? Ohhhhh! I shudder to even finish processing the thought! ~:)

    Clarrisa RedDye (LeDeau)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>