February 27, 2017

February 27, 2013

Why “Somebody should (NOT) do something” and “There oughta (NOT) be a law”

Today is the 80th anniversary of a terror attack on a public institution.  It led to decisive government action and implementation of new laws and procedures. The inability of existing law to prevent the attack was overcome by the clear sense of national emergency.

Groups blamed for inciting the terrorist were identified and broken up by force of law. 

New courts were established with special powers to deal with the unique public problem, freeing the executive branch and police from limits imposed on them by existing constitutional safeguards.

You can read all about it here.

For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.  (Matthew 24:5-8 ESV)

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



But remember also that it wasn’t an absence of firepower but an absence of will that allowed this to happen.

As William Sheridan Allen pointed out in THE NAZI SEIZURE OF POWER, published back in 1965, both the Reichsbanner and the Rotfrontkampferbund had men and stores of munitions that could certainly have challenged the military capacity of the NSDAP. That they did not tells one something of how totalitarianism had taken hold of German consciousness.

[1] Posted by Jeremy Bonner on 2-27-2013 at 08:31 AM · [top]

Jeremy #1 - true enough.  I think that totalitarianism had taken hold because the depression fed demand for an effective leader to solve the mess.  The need to “do something about the problem” is a great invitation to totalitarians.

[2] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 2-27-2013 at 10:49 AM · [top]

Marinus van der Lubbe, statement to police (3rd March, 1933)

I myself am a Leftist, and was a member of the Communist Party until 1929. I had heard that a Communist demonstration was disbanded by the leaders on the approach of the police. In my opinion something absolutely had to be done in protest against this system. Since the workers would do nothing, I had to do something myself.

What confuses me is why he would do this in the first place. Wasn’t he getting what he wanted? How essentially did the National Socialist party differ from the Communist party in the ends it sought? Just different pigs running the sty? I never understood how Hitler and Stalin essentially differed from each other despite the fact that they were supposedly on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

But as to the present, the Democrats and liberals have more and more been willing to rationalize just about anything. Remember Louis Seidman, the Harvard law prof (instructing our future judges) that the Constitution ought to be ditched?

As I read the piece above I realized the left is getting closer and closer to being able to rationalize anything, even measures such as those. They have that advantage: we play by the rules, but the left has successfully given itself a moral lobotomy in that regard. They don’t feel it as a deeply ingrained moral instinct any more. Nothing that will advance the agenda is off limits.

[3] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 2-27-2013 at 11:31 AM · [top]

SpongJohn: I’ve seen all kinds of theories about van der Lubbe: 

- He was just some crazy guy.  Under this model, he’s an Adam Lanza figure, some fringe type useful to making sweeping politcal assertions and changes.

- He was put up to it by Nazi agents, giving them the crisis they needed to implement their agenda.  Under this model, he’s close to “Fast and Furious,” creating gun crime to assert the need for gun control.

- He was guilty as charged, a Commie doing his thing.  And the Nazis simply played it well to be the totalitarians who got rid of the other totalitarians.

[4] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 2-27-2013 at 11:47 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.