Is it wrong to compare Hitler to Obama?
My comparison of Hilter and Obama was nearly complete when my assistant burst into the room in a panic. Sobbing, she revealed that Hitler drank Earl Grey, while Obama prefers camomile.
Dejected, I shredded my comparison, then burned it.
Many observers feel that Obama cannot be compared with Hitler until Obama becomes German, sleeps with his niece, grows a moustache, and trims it just so. Any comparison of political tactics, between the National Socialist (Hitler) and the Socialist (Obama), are off-limits due to umpteen traits that “just don’t match.”
One such objection? “Hitler stuffed Jews into ovens! Obama hasn’t done, and won’t do, anything nearly as evil!”
I couldn’t agree more. Obama can’t get away with that, and probably wouldn’t want to. But I have two questions:
Question #1: The week before Hitler murdered his first Jew, were Hitler’s actions until that point acceptable? Liberals, please answer “yes” or “no.”
Question #2: Did Hitler’s act of murdering his first Jew erase his prior actions, so that we cannot compare them to the actions of other dictators?
Hitler did many things before the first Jew was placed in an oven. Hitler did many of those things as leader of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. What if today’s politician only does half the things Hitler did, but doesn’t murder anyone? Must I deem his actions “not similar” because the climax is missing?
Imagine a bunch of liberals watching Star Wars. After the movie ends, we break into the projection booth, and chop off Act 3 (we delete the final act). We then play the shortened version to the same liberal audience. Then, we ask their impressions. They seem confused….
“Who’s this grandpa character in the bathrobe? The shiny metal guy, is that a robot? And who’s the jerk in the black mask with asthma? This movie makes no sense!”
So we remind the liberals that moments ago, they watched the same exact movie. Suddenly angry, they snap at us….
“This movie bears no similarity to Star Wars, and we can’t BELIEVE you’re comparing it to Star Wars! The two movies have NOTHING in common! After all, in the shorter movie, THE DEATH STAR DOESN’T EXPLODE! So how can you compare this to Star Wars?? You’re crazy!”
Liberals will accept no comparison until we travel via time machine 10 years into the future, and prove to them that Obama is stuffing people in ovens. There are two problems with that. First, my time machine is broken. Second, I don’t believe Obama will ever stuff anyone into an oven.
Yet here we are, in Act 1 of the same Socialist/Fascist movie we’ve seen in Germany, the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba and China.
In the USA, I don’t care if Act 2 turns out to be different. I don’t care if Act 3 never happens. (Our version of the movie, the American version, might be a two-act play). But the absence of a matching Act 3 doesn’t make Obama’s Act 1 “not comparable” to Act 1 of Hitler/Castro/Chavez/Mussolini/Stalin/Mao.
For skeptical liberals, let us name a few parallels between the actions of Hitler and Obama. Just a smattering. No, their brands of cologne still don’t match. Yet despite that logical flaw, let us focus on our topic – their actions.
The Nazis are recognized as the all-time masters of propaganda. Hitler appointed Goebbels head of propaganda to create films, art and magnificent speeches promoting National Socialism (Nazism).
On August 10, 2009, Obama directed Yosi Sargent of the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to organize a conference call with 21 different NEA-friendly artistic organizations. The artist groups had been active in the Obama campaign, and most had recently received financial “support” from the taxpayer-funded NEA. During the conference call, these artist groups were urged “to push the President and push his administration.” That is a clear violation of law. They were also urged to create art designed to push Obama’s “health care” and his other issues.
Within 48 hours after this conference call, all 21 artist organizations had issued statements supporting Obama’s health care position. Their taxpayer-funded “Obama Art” would take longer than 48 hours to create. The entire scheme broke American laws designed to limit the power of the Executive Branch (White House). The art they created is propaganda.
Conclusion? Both Hitler and Obama funded propaganda to push their political party and positions. The goal is to persuade men, women and children toward specific political conclusions using art, music and film. Obama’s propaganda is subsidized by the NEA using taxpayer money, in violation of American law. When confronted about the NEA conference call, the White House lied, issuing various denials before finally reassigning Sargent after the audiotape was played repeatedly on TV.
Intimidation and Seizure of Private Property
Hitler intimidated the Jews and seized their gold, art and real estate. Obama intimidates business executives, and seizes their companies (AIG / Chrysler / GM) and their salaries.
The excuse to socialize banks is “The bank accepted a bailout, so the White House can retroactively set whatever terms it wishes.” Yet many banks were forced to accept bailout funds, and when several banks attempted to repay those funds, the White House turned them away. But wait, wasn’t the purpose of bailouts to get banks back on their feet? That’s how the bailouts were advertised.
But the true purpose of the bailouts, under Obama, is to control the banks. The White House wants their strings to stay attached so they can rule banks by fiat. And now, Obama uses the same approach to seize non-banks such as automobile companies.
Hitler sent the SS and Gestapo to intimidate Jews (Kristallnacht) and round them up for abuse. Obama sends busloads of SEIU and ACORN foot soldiers to the homes of business executives, where they march, yell and intimidate. This “Ostapo” is also sent to shake down banks and insurance companies. A payment in the right amount, to ACORN or the correct union, ends the protest.
For years, ACORN shook down banks, threatening to file grievances unless the banks issued mortgages to first-time home buyers with little or no credit. Who advised ACORN on such techniques? A young lawyer named Barack Obama. After 20 years of this, poor people “owned” trillions worth of real estate via bad mortgages. When enough of these subprime (bad credit risk) borrowers couldn’t pay their mortgages, the subprime mortgage crisis sank the world economy. Who did liberals blame? AIG, the insurance company hired to hedge against these same reckless gambles forced by the government.
Conclusion? Both Hitler and Obama intimidated private citizens at their homes/offices, using groups of thugs, to (i) seize private property, or (ii) cause the forfeiture of private property. The media is used in both cases to demonize the target and garner public support for the illegal seizures. Typically, the media joins the White House in demonizing the target, rather than siding with property law.
Instead of blaming bad government policy, the White House blames “greed” and punishes the banks with more bad policy. Just as Hitler blamed the “greedy Jews” and punished them with draconian laws.
Obama’s latest stunt is the single-handed appointment of a “Pay Czar” to tell banks how much their employees can be paid, thereby abrogating compensation contracts and violating the rights of citizens to enter into agreements free of duress. That sounds like a certain German dictator, but I cannot recall his name.
Rushing New Laws
Hitler passed whatever laws he pleased to enforce his personal wishes. Obama pushes, then signs, trillion-dollar bills overnight – without reading them, and without allowing citizens to read them let alone debate them.
Conclusion? Just like Nazi Germany, the people get whatever laws Obama feels like rushing into effect. If citizens object, they are demonized by the White House as “Teabaggers” and “Extremists.” Unfortunately, Obama’s pet legislation involves trillions of dollars (so-called Stimulus bill) and the annexation of one-sixth of the economy (so-called Healthcare bill).
Suppression of Dissent
One of Hitler’s first actions was to shut down all Jewish newspapers. These included 3 with national circulation, 4 cultural newspapers, a handful of sports papers, and dozens of community newsletters (one in Berlin had 40,000 subscribers). Did Hitler do this because he disliked getting newsprint on his hands? Or did he close the papers to sever the ties between Jews and their communities and make it more difficult for Jews to safely emigrate from an increasingly dangerous Germany? It would be difficult for Jews to publicly protest Nazi abuses after their newspapers were shut down.
Similarly, Obama has identified 3 media targets to suppress:
Obama Target #1 – TV Networks That Don’t Kowtow
Obama’s primary target is FoxNews. By and large, the other networks parrot Obama’s talking points. For example, Chris Matthews effused on MSNBC that when he hears Obama speak, he feels “a tingle up his leg.”
Obama attempted to involve four TV networks in his FoxNews boycott by excluding Fox from the White House pool interview of his “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg. Unfortunately for Obama, the four networks sensed that they might be the next targets of suppression, so they refused to participate. Obama relented, without murdering the TV executives and burning their stations to the ground, as Hitler might have done to stubborn Jews. In the USA, with a largely free press, such revenge would be reported to the public.
Obama Target #2 – Talk Radio
Obama has targeted conservative radio hosts by name – notably Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. He has directed the American people to “Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.” In the months following Obama’s denouncement of Limbaugh, the radio host’s audience nearly doubled.
Thus, Obama’s new attack on talk radio involves breaking up the national reach of conservative radio shows, forcing each “local community” to develop and approve its own radio content. This “localism” would cripple and dilute the audiences of national radio stars opposed to Obama, such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Mark Levin.
Obama Target #3 – The Internet
Obama’s latest attack on free speech involves the internet. Obama is pushing so-called “net neutrality” laws to control how the internet distributes information to the public.
But Obama realizes that if he crushes talk radio, TV and internet will fill the free-speech void. He cannot control the flow of public information without controlling ALL widely used media. Thus, he is attacking all formats. The only format he’s not attacking is newspapers, as they are mostly liberal, sympathetic to Socialist power grabs, critical of his opponents, and are close to extinction anyway due to dwindling readership. Hitler would have found America’s collapsing newspaper industry very convenient – no need to shut them down since they’re dying on their own.
Conclusion? Both Hitler and Obama attempt to suppress dissent wherever it may arise. Hitler’s job was fairly simple – shut the newspapers. Obama faces a bigger challenge – if he controls TV, the internet will still inform the public. Obama must systematically subjugate all media outlets before he can crush dissent. He seeks to force the same fawning adoration displayed by MSNBC upon all media via a catalog of new “fairness” laws.
Hitler and his National Socialist (Nazi) party favored euthanizing retarded people, the handicapped, and gays. This began well before the Nazis started systematically murdering Jews, who were also deemed undesirable.
Similarly, Obama favors “letting the elderly die,” as Robert Reich announced in taped statements to an appreciative Socialist audience.
The “Obamacare” plan of socialized medicine will ration care to the elderly. This is already standard in the UK and Canada. Patients wait months, sometimes years, for routine operations. During this wait, some suffer in pain, some suffer deteriorating health, while others simply die.
Mark Levin exposes the evils of Obamacare in this brilliant audio at the 20:00 mark.
Conclusion? Obama feels that elderly people have outlived their usefulness, and thus can be denied medical care. Thus, his Socialist healthcare proposals use the QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life-Years) system. Under this system, doctors consult a government chart of ages and maladies. If the patient only has 3 years of expected life remaining, but the hip replacement is only approved for those expected to live another 4 years, then the patient is denied the operation and must suffer for the rest of his life.
“Don’t worry,” we’re told, “this saves money.” Well, it would save even more money to just deny care to everyone. If saving money is the primary goal, why are we spending billions on medical care to begin with? Perhaps we should let everyone, even young people, die of ailments.
Hitler felt that retarded or handicapped people were undesirable, and cost the state too much to be kept alive. Obama feels the same way about elderly people – he just can’t say it openly, so he says it through policy.
Unions / Automobile Companies
This comparison is stunning. In the 1930’s, Hitler outlawed previous unions, then forced all Germans to join and pay dues to a new union, the German Labor Front. 10% of the dues were allocated to a program called “Strength Through Joy” (Kraft Dutch Freude), which oversaw recreation and sports. Part of those funds were directed to build an automobile factory, since Hitler considered cars related to sport. Thus, Hitler forced participation in a union – to create an automobile plant, which he controlled.
In 2009, Obama didn’t need to build an automobile plant – one already existed. He just didn’t control it. So Obama forced Chrysler bondholders into a “bankruptcy” that didn’t follow the laws of bankruptcy. Instead of getting their due, senior creditors (Yale University’s endowment, pension funds, and other institutions) were forced into a secondary position by Obama. This was contrary to law and against the terms of their bond holdings. Obama handed 55% ownership in Chrysler to UAW (a union and junior creditor) while allowing senior creditors (bondholders) to keep only 30 cents on the dollar.
The end result? Hitler had his union-owned car factory, and Obama had his union-owned car factory. Each man controlled his factory via intermediaries, who were paid off by union benefits. Coercion was used in both cases to acquire each factory.
Dear Liberals, do the parallels still escape you?
If you still don’t see any similarities between Act 1 (Hitler) and Act 1 (Obama), please re-read this column until you do.
After that, if you still don’t see the comparison, I need your participation in a windmill project which only costs you $40,000 and promises enormous returns within the first month. It’s located in Nigeria. Al Gore says it’s the best weather machine on the market.