[FredZarguna]

Not at all. Bill Clinton was a danger to the Republic -- although probably the least serious one that the Democrats presented to us during the 20th Century. There is little doubt he would have been a lot more dangerous had we not opposed him. He also was a charismatic leader to some, but at this remove can we agree that comparing him to Hitler would have been a rabid mischaracterization? If we can't agree on that, there is really nothing more for you and me to discuss.

Do you believe Barack 0bama is going to embark on a program of sending his political enemies to concentration camps? Do you think he's going to send Untermenchsen to gas chambers? Intimidate, threaten, and ultimately wage war against all of his neighbors? There is very little reason to suspect at this point that he intends any of these things. That doesn't mean he 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.

[frog in a pot]

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.

[grey_whiskers]

Even in the light of his association with Ayers; his "blank slate" past which looks like it is right out of Tom Clancy's description of a sleeper agent; his appointing people (*without* Senate oversight, thank you very much) who openly praise *MAO* (a greater killer than Stalin)?

Please re-consider.

Cheers!