Posted on 10/19/2009 10:16:20 PM PDT by Noumenon
No, he’s worse. He’s the front man for those who will make Hitler look like an amateur.
At what stage in the dismantling of the US marketplace would you advocate raising an alarm, if at all?
The article points out how easy it was for a persuasive, suicidal dictator to destroy an advanced, cultured society. The author’s point did not require addressing Hitler’s extremes, It was sufficient for the author to remind the reader how easy it was for Hitler to take complete control of his government in the face of real and fabricated crises.
Your initial criticism of the writing argues the reference to Germany was inappropriate inasmuch as Germany never had “…an effective representative form of government.”
Some would argue there is little difference between your point and the fact we presently have an Executive branch that believes the US Constitution is “fundamentally flawed”; a branch that at the same time is being heavily populated with career anti-Americans and one that enjoys the working support of the Congress.
Some further believe there was a significant failure of our political process and wonder whether the third branch of government, the Judiciary, will recognize it has a role in the controversy over O’s seeming lack of qualifications. At the heart of that controversy is the failure of state officials to apply state election laws, and the complete failure of the Congress at its January 8 Joint Session to adhere to the requirements of 3 USC 15 whereby O could have been required to demonstrate his qualification for office - if a majority of the members had recognized their oath to defend the US Constitution.
You then state:
“That doesn’t mean he (Obama) is not dangerous, but it does mean he is not likely destined to become one of the most reviled men in the history of mankind.”
You know no such argument has been made on these pages.
But, at least we agree about the war with Islam.
I know nothing of the kind. Please re-read the post. The author is making exactly this argument.
Some would argue there is little difference between your point and the fact we presently have an Executive branch that believes the US Constitution is “fundamentally flawed”; a branch that at the same time is being heavily populated with career anti-Americans and one that enjoys the working support of the Congress.
Again, if you know history, you know that many of these same -- thoroughly execrable, I agree -- people were part of the Clinton Administration. In fact, a great many of these anti-Americans were also part of the Bush Administration. Indeed, they are part of the permanent apparat, and extending backward through history to the CIO and before them to the Wobblies, their parents and grand-parents were part of Roosevelt's administration: they were anti-Americans then, they did great damage to the country and the world, and sadly, for the most part they escaped with their reputations fully intact. History regards them as quite the opposite of treasonous criminals; those who opposed them and dared to speak the truth about the extent to which the State Department and OSS and even White House were thoroughly infested with these traitors are the ones who have been largely reviled in American History. The Berlin Wall has come down, but 1.2 billion people still live in thrall because of their willful malice and our parents' inattention then, and our reckoning with them has yet to play out.
This is a long, long battle. It has been going on through most of human history; the fight by the few people who want to be free against the many who profit (even if only by having the dubious luxury of never being adults) from authoritarianism. In the times of our parents and grandparents, frankly, we failed. The parents of the "greatest generation" embraced a man far different from the one history has come to know, and in accepting his "New Deal" they shredded most of the US Constitution -- long before Barack 0bama arrived on the scene. Our parents, too, failed. They could've recognized the danger but were wearied by war and by wealth, and when the real health care "public option" nudged its ugly nose under the tent -- Medicare -- again, they did not shoo the camel away.
You will not snap people back to attention by comparing 0bama to Hitler. Even if true -- it is not -- they are not ready to accept how far down the road to serfdom they have already gone. Even glancing comparisons of this kind turn people off. Remember we are attempting to change the opinions of idiots who vote on the basis of the last yard sign they see on the way into the fire hall one November -- perhaps at the most two Novembers -- every four years. Their attention wanders even in life-and-death situations and as bad as this system of governance is it is better than everything else.
A woman who called Glenn Beck's radio show yesterday characterized him as the "front license-plate on an 18-wheeler headed straight for us".
Please re-consider.
Cheers!
Adolf didn't need a teleprompter.
As yet, 0bama has not come close to FDR, whose NRA was the harbinger of all the ills we've had to endure since. Just ten years before I was born, this liberal icon sent 110,000 loyal Americans to concentration camps. His OSS, State Department, and Treasury were infested with Communists -- some of whom we will never know. Their machinations turned hundreds of millions over to the tender mercies of Mao, and our nuclear secrets to our greatest Enemy. His administration was considered so untrustworthy that military intelligence did not reveal -- to the President of the United States -- that we had broken the Soviets' codes.
I'm not counseling against vigilance. But 0bama has some way to go before he even becomes Roosevelt, let alone Hitler.
All I was trying to address was this one sentence of your earlier post:
There is very little reason to suspect at this point that he intends any of these things.
I was merely pointing out what the "reasons to *suspect*" were.
Keep me posted :-)
Cheers!
That's a fact noticed by many a Photoshop artist.
Actually, Benito could give a better speech in a foreign language without a teleprompter than Zero can give in his own with one (Zero, even at his best, is a quite boring speaker after a couple of minutes). Zero is an empty suit into which the Sheeple poured their hopes.
Intentions are problematic. If asked, did Roosevelt intend to destroy the Constitution and replace it with his personal authority, I would have to say "absolutely." He was unfit to hold the office of Washington in so many ways. I think 0bama is every bit the megalomaniac FDR was, so you may be right. I hope that my generation, which has failed in so many ways, is finally equal to a task that our grandparents and parents were not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.