« Oh, the humanity... | Main | America, the Beautiful »

Schwarzenegger For President?

AFP thinks so.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Scarcely half a year after George W. Bush's reelection to the White House, prospective candidates for the 2008 presidential race already are queueing up for the chance to succeed him. . . .

Governors have had much better luck in winning the Oval Office which has given several chiefs executives from various US states to weigh their chances in 2008. Chief among them is actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger, currently head of California's state government.

That would probably be true...if Schwarzenegger had been born in the U.S. and thus was eligible under our laws to run for the Presidency.


Comments (16)

The law doesn't need to be ... (Below threshold)
John:

The law doesn't need to be changed. There are plenty of citizens that could do as good or better a job than Arnold.

Copy of a message I sent to... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Copy of a message I sent to AFP:

"Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph (d) of the Constitution of the United States:

'No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...'

Is it that none of you at AFP can read, or do you choose not to?"

"nor shall private property... (Below threshold)
Josh Davenport:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

AFP has a point.

Josh Davenport: Yo... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Josh Davenport:

You've lost me.

They have obviously been re... (Below threshold)

They have obviously been reading over at Prison Planet... Alex Jones seems to think that Arnold will not only be put in as the next president, he will thus usher in the Police State (watch all about it in Police State 3: Total Enslavement!!) because you know, Arnold is from Austria which happens to be the birthplace of Hitler, thus Arnold is of course a Nazi.

Such goes the theory, anyways...

I'll be ready to hand Alex Jones, and the AFP, their ass in 2008 when Arnold is no where to be seen on the ticket.

I think it's time to change... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I think it's time to change the emphasis as to the inappropriate (irrational) application of "nazi" and start placing it where it belongs: occultist liberals.

Because that's who the actual nazis were: occultist inspired and maintained and liberal in politic. So liberal that they adulated one star leader...much as today's liberals again are doing, while defaming everyone else who dares to disagree with them.

Not to overlook homosexuality, which was among the founding inspirations for the actual nazis, given that the founder of their political movement was a "homosexual activist" right out of Berlin's homosexual "golden age."

They denounced Christianity, embraced occultism, and then ran even more amok afterward.

So, conservatives in our present day, people who recognize the signifince of the individual, of freedom of religion, who strive for a smaller government (in concept and application), and so much more, are, actually, the antithesis of what and who 'nazis' were.

About Schwarzenegger (the nazi reference is too far-fetched to even discuss, given his ardent and clear outspokeness about his own politics, that are nothing similar to what and who nazis were), the leading handicap he has is that he's married to Maria Shriver and is under familiar influence, to whatever degree, of the Shrivers and Ted Kennedy, worse.

And, of course, the birth requirement. I think it's interesting that people want to discuss electing as President a naturalized citizen of the U.S., but it's still a risky prospect and a problematic idea for a lot of us.

I also think that there are many U.S. born citizens who would and could make excellent Chief Executives, and that there's no overwhelming reason to change the laws otherwise. Even for Schwarzenegger.

This whole "star" thing as President is something that is appealing to Democrats (Obama, Ford, Kennedy, Clinton, etc., these are all people who have not provided clear or good leadership with a consistent record but who are still touted as "special" based upon some media and many cosmetic appeals)...and I think it's the worse handicap that Democrats continue to display: their fawning over the pretty people while failing in ideology "anyway" -- it shows up who and what is important (the glittery things) while what isn't (principle, solutions, etc.).

So, perhaps to Democrats, Schwarzenegger would make for Presidential, but he's one of those people who is liberal in ideology and conservative in financial matters (realistic in that area, he certainly is)...except for his exposing unions for the problems they continue to create for everyone else, I think the Democrats would be endorsing him for theirs.

I like Schwarzenegger, and very much, but I think it's not reasonable to consider changing our election laws about this important requirement (that a candidate not be foreign born) for him, or for anyone, for that matter.

And, for all the nazi liberals, they can still search out their next fuhrer -- call him Bubba, or her Bubbess, it's still the same emotional and spiritual failing, and they're still as intolerant of everyone else as nazis ever were, so I don't see much difference there.

"Not to overlook homosex... (Below threshold)
Steve Wiser:

"Not to overlook homosexuality, which was among the founding inspirations for the actual nazis, given that the founder of their political movement was a "homosexual activist" right out of Berlin's homosexual 'golden age.'"

Oh yes, clearly homosexuality was a "founding inspiration" of Nazism, just like Judiasm was. I guess you feel that saying that black is white long enough will make it so, but I don't think it works that way.

Of course, this whole post is so Godwinesque, it's not funny. Please don't call anybody a "Nazi" except actual Nazis. It demeans you, it demeans your argument (whatever it was in that jumbled mess), and frankly, it demeans everyone who ever was persecuted or lost a loved one to the Nazi regime, including homosexuals.

Thanks for your consideration.

"Not to overlook homosex... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

"Not to overlook homosexuality, which was among the founding inspirations for the actual nazis, given that the founder of their political movement was a "homosexual activist" right out of Berlin's homosexual 'golden age.'"

Oh yes, clearly homosexuality was a "founding inspiration" of Nazism, just like Judiasm was. I guess you feel that saying that black is white long enough will make it so, but I don't think it works that way.

Of course, this whole post is so Godwinesque, it's not funny. Please don't call anybody a "Nazi" except actual Nazis. It demeans you, it demeans your argument (whatever it was in that jumbled mess), and frankly, it demeans everyone who ever was persecuted or lost a loved one to the Nazi regime, including homosexuals.

Thanks for your consideration.

Steve Wiser:... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Steve Wiser:


I don't believe that -S-, Seixon or anybody else was calling Arnold a Nazi; I believe they were quoting others at other blogs (a few links for those of us less acquainted with those blogs would be nice).

As for homosexuals and the Nazi Party, I refer you to:

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html

It gives far greater detail than I can here on the relationship between homosexuals and the Nazi party.

fatman,No, obvious... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

fatman,

No, obviously, no one here was calling Arnold a Nazi. However, I believe -S-'s intention in using the terms "nazi liberals" and "start placing [the term 'nazi'] it where it belongs: occultist liberals" make my assumption that she is casually calling others nazis pretty well founded. It's not right when the left does it for Arnold and it's no better when ignorant people on the right like -S- do it either.

As for your linked article, this is the same type of response that I got from Dan in the other thread when he was trying to link the Bush administration to fasism. You guys don't seem to relaize that you're simply flip sides of the same coin, trying to force current movements and attitudes into the mold of "nazism" and "facism" because it's an easy, sensationalistic argument. Just link to an online article that uses logic straight from the Michael Moore/Ann Coulter playbook. Show some examples, make some inferences, draw conclusions not based on the actual evidence. In other words, argument by anecdotes.

By this guy's logic, the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, and the Republican Party are all founded on homosexuality since they all have outed homosexuals from their ranks. The Nazis arrested and imprisoned 50,000 homosexuals for being homosexuals. I'd say that is a pretty good evidence for being opposed to it as a general principle.

Steven:This is wha... (Below threshold)
fatman:

Steven:

This is what I get for writing comments at four o'clock in the morning.

I will concede, upon re-reading her comment, that -S- did appear to--deliberately--stuff liberals and nazis into the same box, and I won't even try to defend that. But I still don't think Seixon did, or was trying to. AND NEITHER WAS I.

The article I gave the link to was one I found by Googling the phrase "find founders of nazi party". I read it through, mainly to see if -S- had any idea of what she was talking about, and then relayed the link to you. Some of what I read there--particularly about Ernst Roehm--I already knew. Much I did not. But nowhere did I--or the writers of that article--try to claim that all--or most--homosexuals were nazis; my point was, rather, that a very large proportion of the nazi founders and leadership were of a particularly violent and sadistic breed of "Butch" homosexuals. They used Germany's pre-existing anti-homosexual laws (later amended) to persecute other homosexuals (mostly "Femmes") and anyone whom they considered a threat to their power, homo-or-heterosexual (before you go off on another rant, I am NOT calling all butch homosexuals violent and sadistic). And your own numbers tend to support this.

You say that the nazis arrested and imprisoned fifty thousand homosexuals, for being homosexuals. I won't dispute the numbers, but consider this: Hitler's "Greater Germany" (Germany, Austria, the Sudetenland, the Danzig Corridor and Alsace-Lorraine) had a population of about fifty million people. Depending on which sex researcher you believe, between one and ten percent of that population could reasonably be expected to be homosexual. Which means that between five hundred thousand and five million of "Greater Germany's" citizens were (probably) homosexual. If the nazis were truly serious about persecuting homosexuals, they could have tripped over more than fifty thousand. And that's not counting all the occupied countries, which would have (a conservative guess here) quadrupled the numbers.

Now if I somehow struck a nerve here, I'm sorry. My intent was to share information, not pick a fight. But I really don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. Particularly words that I would never have spoken.

First things first. I don't... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

First things first. I don't understand how Seixon got into this discussion in the first place, but I made no comments about him/her in any post. The timeline was this:

1) -S- posted her bizarre, uninformed accusations, throwing "nazi" and "fuhrer" around
2) I responded to her specific quote on homosexuality and her "logic" in general
3) You posted, misunderstanding my point about the "Nazi" line and providing a link to back up -S-'s assertions
4) I assumed that you were endorsing the article as presented and responded based on that assumption

I'm sorry if you were merely pointing out this article as an example of how easily people like -S- are duped and how little it takes to convince them of the most ludicrous assertions, as long as they back up that person's preconceived notions. I'm sure that -S- would never have believed an article that purportedly showed that many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were gay and that homosexuality was "among the founding inspirations" of the USA, regardless of low long the bibliography was or what site it was posted on. She would have immediately and confidently declared such an article to be hogwash with no further research. However, she would make the opposite assertion about the article you linked to, since it fits her bizarre world view, where liberals and homosexuals are "Nazis" to a 'T'. I agree that your stated point is less severe than that. It's simply that, "a very large proportion of the nazi founders and leadership were of a particularly violent and sadistic breed of 'Butch' homosexuals." I'll deal with that thesis in my next post. Prior to that, think about why you have come to that conclusion and whether you'd believe the hypothetical article I reference above if you found it when doing a search on the internet after reading a post on a blog claiming it was so.

On your other point, you seem to believe that homosexuals are born with the pink triangles embedded in their chests and can be identified by merely lifting their shirts. It's not necessarily that easy to figure out who the homosexuals are, compared to the Jews or the Gypsies. In Germany, there were entire neighborhoods of Jews that were shipped off in a single night. Others were identified simply by last name or appearance. None of those are that easy with homosexuals. Anyone, in any neighborhood, in any family, could be gay. Also, I'll certainly agree that exterminating the Jews was a higher priority as far as the Nazis were concerned. However, you're arguing that persecuting and imprisoning a mere 2% to 20% of the possible population for being gay argues that the Nazi leadership was secretly homosexual? When sodomy was illegal in Alabama, what percentage of their population was ever in prison on that charge? Were their police and politicians just really, super GAY? If someone proved to you that we'd only arrested or killed 10% of the total terrorists in Iraq, would you conclude that the US military leadership were actually terrorist sympathizers based on that simple fact? BTW: I cut the population in half when re-doing your calculations. The Nazis weren't interested in arresting lesbians, as per Paragraph 175.

I have a few, more specific things to say about your linked article, but I'll do that in a following post. This one and the link I gave you in the other thread http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/8706/apsc01.htm should take a little time to get through.

Jumping straight to the con... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

Jumping straight to the conclusions of the article,

"There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. As we have noted, the ideas for disposing of the Jews originated with Lanz von Leibenfels. The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA. The first concentration camp, as well as the system for training its brutal guards, was the work of Ernst Roehm. The first pogrom, Kristallnacht, was orchestrated in 1938 by the homosexual Reinhard Heydrich. And it was the transvestite Goering who started the "evolution of the Final Solution...[with an] order to Heydrich (Jan. 24, 1939) concerning the solution of the Jewish question by 'emigration' and 'evacuation'" (Robinson:25)."

Deconstructing these assertions one by one:

A) "As we have noted, the ideas for disposing of the Jews originated with Lanz von Leibenfels" -- first, where is this noted or sourced. The article makes no mention of Leibenfels up to this point, so it's hard to understand how they came to this conclusion. Presumably, it's something directly from the "Pink Swastika." On it's face, this accusation makes a lot less sense than attributing the idea to Martin Luther, whose anti-Semitism is legendary and who was regarded as a patron "saint" by the largely Protestant nation. Certainly, Luther's vehement diatribes against the Jews made them much easier to demonize in Germany as the enemy. As for "disposing" of them, he wrote, "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them." and "I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God." None of the books I have detailing the history of the Nazi party even mention Lanz von Leibenfels, and internet searches also turn up little to support this as far as I can tell.


B) "The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA"
It is not in question that the SA did carry out some of the early persecution of the Jews and that some of their top leadership was homosexual (Roehm, Heines). But this was far from a homosexual organization. Furthermore, the "first years of terrorism against the Jews" largely consisted of harassment and beatings. There is no comparison to what went on in these years to "the Holocaust." As noted in Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", p.272:
"But at the beginning, in the Thirties, the population of the Nazi concentration camps in Germany probably never numbered more than from twenty to thirty thousand at any one time, and many of the horrors later perpetrated by Himmler's men were as yet unknown. The extermination camps, the slave labor camps, the camps where the inmates were used as guinea pigs for Nazi 'medical research' had to wait for the war.


C) "The first concentration camp, as well as the system for training its brutal guards, was the work of Ernst Roehm" -- also non-sourced, note that the first concentration camp was Dacahu, opened in 1933, only a year before Roehm was dead. I believe that Theodor Eicke is generally credited with organization and training for the first camps.

Even assuming that this is all totally true, the most brutal era of the concentration camps was after 1934, when the camps were turned over to the S.S. From Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", p. 271-272:
"Shortly after the Roehm purge [Night of Long Knives], Hitler turned the concentration camps over to the control of the S.S., which proceeded to organize them with the efficiency and ruthlessness expected of the elite corps. Guard duty was given exclusively to the Death's-Head units (Totenkopfverbaende) whose members were recruited from the toughest Nazi elements."

Further, from testimony at the Nuremberg Trials:
"I must say, your Lordship, that after the Reichsfuehrer SS took over the concentration camps, which as far as I know was at the end of 1933, the SA as an organization had nothing to do with concentration camps and the guarding of concentration camps. If SA men were in fact used as guards, then they were drafted by the authorities as auxiliary police or something similar in order to carry out this task. But in that case they were completely removed from the responsibility and the authority of the SA."

So, this accusation is intentionally misleading. The time that the SA was in charge of the camps, they were smaller in scale with fewer atrocities. The true ruthlessness and certainly the organized killings of prisoners came long after they were no longer in change.


D) "The first pogrom, Kristallnacht, was orchestrated in 1938 by the homosexual Reinhard Heydrich" -- Here's a great example of making shit up. Heydrich was no homosexual. In fact, he was a notorious ladies man. Their single source for this accusation, an entire book on Heydrich by Edouard Calic is pure fiction. That book, a definitive, researched biography of the man, says nothing about Heydrich's homosexuality. However, sources for his heterosexuality abound:

"Heydrich also developed great interest in women and pursued sex with the same self-driven desire for achievement he applied to everything else." -- http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/heydrich.htm

"In 1922 he joined the navy, however he was later dismissed when he had a brief liaison with a shipyard director's daughter, and subsequently became engaged to a young woman, Lina von Osten." -- http://reinhard-heydrich.biography.ms/


E) "And it was the transvestite Goering who started the "evolution of the Final Solution" -- This is doubly weak, since they don't even claim Goering was a homosexual, but a transvestite. Even this conclusion is based on the flimsiest of evidence, at least given the common conception of what it is to be a transvestite (i.e. Eddie Izzard vs. Dave Foley). Other scholars have raised this question, but have generally decided that it was not supported. I should note that Georing was also married twice and had one daughter.


So, out of five accusations, supporting the idea that "homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust," the author, Scott Lively, got 1/2 (B) that makes sense and is backed up by any reliable source. The rest are either total misinterpretations of the facts or simply bizarre fabrications, like Heydrich being homosexual.

Well, hopefully you've learned a little bit here, fatman. You wanted to "share information". On the other hand, I’d like to "share correct information." It's a subtle difference, but I'm sure that you can appreciate it.

In any event, I eagerly await your response.

I stand corrected. And hope... (Below threshold)
fatman:

I stand corrected. And hope that if I ever find myself in the same position with someone else as your are with relation to me, that I can avoid being as condescending and self-righteous as you have been.

I must admit, however, that... (Below threshold)
fatman:

I must admit, however, that I still have some unanswered questions.

1) If Roehm and some of the SA leadership were openly homosexual, why was it tolerated? Why did Hitler recall Roehm from his six year, self-imposed exile in Bolivia to re-assume command of the SA in 1931? Why did Hitler not arrest Roehm and have him executed until pressure from the High Command, the right wing industrialists who supported Hitler (neither of which had anything to do with Roehm's homosexuality) and Roehm's own lust for power force force him to?

2) If, as you say, the nazis didn't target lesbians, then fifty thousand homosexuals rounded up and thrown into the concentration camps would indeed account for between two and twenty percent of the male homosexual population...of "Greater Germany". But what about the homosexual populations in Germany's nominal allies (Italy, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania, all of which ended up being occupied)? Or in the defeated and occupied countries (France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, what was left Czechoslovakia, Poland, Greece, the western "republics" of the U.S.S.R. and--to a lesser extent--the French and Italian colonies in North Africa)? If I missed anybody, let me know.

As for Seixon, I read your original comment as a counter-attack on everybody who brought up the nazis in this thread (and Seixon had done that). Sorry for the confusion.

Finally, the link you provided has gone unused and will continue to do so. Not because I'm afraid of being proven wrong; I've already conceded that. I just don't care. I do have a deep interest in WWII and the politics and events leading up to it. However, the sexual practices of Hitler and his band of monsters are, in IMHO, irrelevant. I got involved in this discussion out of a mistaken belief that you had misunderstood something in -S-'s comment and my own interest in the era, nothing more. I was, believe it or not, trying to be helpful. But as my granddaddy would say "No good deed goes unpunished". I think I'll have that tattooed on my forehead (backwards, so I can read it every time I look in a mirror).

fatman,Fair enough... (Below threshold)
Steven Wiser:

fatman,

Fair enough. I think that there was some confusion on both our parts about what the other was saying. That seems to happen a lot when hot-button subjects come up. I've seen the "Pink Swastika" drivel brought up before, and it's always been by completely irrational homophobes like -S- (or the authors of the book for that matter), not just by impartial WWII buffs. I, myself, tend to fall into that latter category, but I HATE bad, revisionist history with a white-hot passion, and Scott Lively is a truly pathetic example of it. So, I apologize for misjudging you and coming on too strongly, but those people usually need severe verbal beatings to penetrate their extremely dense skulls.

To answer your questions:
1) Obviously, it wasn't tolerated for too long, seeing as he was killed in 1934. While the motivation for this killing and the killing of the rest of the SA leadership (homosexual and heterosexual) was undoubtedly driven mainly by political/power-consolidation reasons, one of the internal rationales for it was Roehm's sexuality. From Shirer again, page 225, "[Otto] Dietrich asserted that the scene of the arrest of Heines, who was caught in bed at Wiessee with a young man, 'defied description' and Hitler in addressing the surviving storm troop leaders in Munich at noon on June 30, just after the first executions, declared that for their corrupt morals alone these men deserved to die."

The real reason it was tolerated up to that point was simple and two-fold. Number one was that Roehm was Hitler's best friend. Their association went way back and Roehm had stood by Hitler and helped him amass power (note that Hitler and Roehm had met and joined forces before Roehm was “out,” perhaps before Roehm even thought of himself as a homosexual) Secondly, Roehm was in a very powerful position as head of the SA. Until the ascendancy of Himmler was complete, it is quite possible that the action taken at the night of long knives might have led to an irreparable rift in Hitler's power base. Simply put, up until that point, Hitler had needed Roehm’s talents.

2) As I mentioned before, expending the time and effort to round up homosexuals simply wasn't too high up on the list of tasks, as far as the Nazis were concerned. It was nowhere near fighting the war, or exterminating the Jews, for example. It's true that homosexuals under the Nazis were outlawed, arrested, and imprisoned simply because of their sexual orientation, but I think it would be wrong to characterize this as a "Gay holocaust," as some authors would. Compared to everything else the Nazis did, this was fairly run-of-the-mill persecution. Apparently, Scott Lively believes that lack of total commitment to this purge signaled a failing in the Nazis, indicating that a large percentage of their leadership was homosexual. Certainly, if Lively were in charge of the Nazis, this particular task would have certainly been job 1.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy