For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
Obama keeps Hitler analogy in the public eye
Written By : Bookworm

Is Obama telling a true story or not? I don’t know and with Obama’s credibility gap, it’s impossible to tell. It doesn’t matter, though. What does matter is that, by relaying this anecdote, Obama is keeping alive the Obama/Hitler analogy:

President Obama at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation dinner last night, discussing false claims made about the health care reform bill, told a little anecdote.

“I was up at the G20 — just a little aside — I was up at the G20, and some of you saw those big flags and all the world leaders come in and Michelle and I are shaking hands with them,” the president said. “One of the leaders — I won’t mention who it was — he comes up to me. We take the picture, we go behind.

“He says, ‘Barack, explain to me this health care debate.’

“He says, ‘We don’t understand it. You’re trying to make sure everybody has health care and they’re putting a Hitler mustache on you — I don’t — that doesn’t make sense to me. Explain that to me.’”

You and I aren’t dumb. We know Obama told this anecdote to a black group as a way to make it clear that, all he’s trying to do is help poor folk (read: black folk) and he, a black man, is subject to the ultimate insult of being called Hitler.

Not that my blog has any impact on Obama and his acolytes, but let me try to set things straight for Obama and that “world leader.” There is actually a legtimate reason why some (although by no means all, or even a critical mass) of ObamaCare opponents like ObamaCare to Nazi social policy and, therefore, liken Obama, the driving force behind ObamaCare, to Hitler, the driving force behind Naziism. (And I’m defending the use of the Obama/Hitler meme, I’m just explaining it.) Although the historically ignorant keep trying to deny it, Naziism was a Leftism philosophy. The party’s official name was the National Socialist Party. Socialists socialize things: they take whatever they can out of the private sector and put it into the government sector. The more they take, the more control they have over their citizens.

Obama’s self-serving and vicious little anecdote aside, the ObamaCare issue is not about “mak[ing] sure everybody has health care.” Putting aside the question of whether that’s even the government’s responsibility, there are actually lots of ways to make sure everybody has health care without giving the government more power. Instead, there are myriad possible ways to expand health care that specifically result from giving the government less power. You can create greater competition by allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, which would lower prices; you can decrease the thousands of regulations that hamper the sale of insurance and the practice of medicine; you can stop requiring insurer’s to sell premium insurance to everyone, whether they need or want it; you can put a cap on outrageous malpractice claims; you can take employers out of the equation so that individuals shop for health insurance just as they do for all other forms of insurance; and so on and so forth.

Alternative, to expand health care, you can do what Obama and his fellow socialists want and take over the medical system, making it a branch of the government. In that way, you can monitor how people work, what they eat, what they drink, how they exercise, perhaps how they procreate, whether babies deserve to be born, etc. That’s rather extreme, but we know that, in even the most unextreme cases, rather like Santa doling out presents based on whether people have been naughty or nice, the government can start to dole out health care to those the government deems worthy — the young and productive. The British have certainly gone this route. While the average young or middle-aged Brit gets decent enough service for colds and appendix attacks, woe unto the Brit who reaches a hoary old age or gets a fatal disease. If you’re salvageable, the care is adequate. If you’re not, tough luck. That’s a slippery slope.

If you travel far enough down that slippery slope of government decisions about deserving sick people, you start getting to the Nazis. No, Obama is not Hitler. No, the Democrats are not Nazis. But government health care opens the door to rationing on an extreme scale, with ever more categories of people classes as undeserving of government beneficence and, eventually, undeserving of life itself. (My great uncle went that way: A manic depressive one day; a Nazi created corpse the next.) And once a government starts deciding that people are undeserving of life for health reasons (they’re a burden, not a benefit, to the state), government has a nasty habit of deciding that people are undeserving of life for other reasons, such as ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, etc.

Americans are a freedom loving people. While Ken Burns may think that the only good idea ever to come out of America is the National Park system (this is true, ’cause his new show is named The National Parks : America’s Best Idea), I’d like to go out on a limb here and suggest that America’s best idea is limited government, with its emphasis an individual freedom and responsiblity. History has shown, over and over, that unlimited government is a slippery slope, and whether one dresses Obama up as Clement Atlee, or Harold Wilson, or Mao, or Hitler (the most recognizable one of the bunch), the point is the same — like them, and possibly with the best intentions in the world, Obama wants to limit Americans’ freedoms by making every fact of American life subject to government mandate.

When Obama, speaking to a black audience, uses a “world leader” as his ventriloquist’s dummy to imply that conservatives are calling him Hitler because he’s a black man who wants to improve poor/black people’s lives, he is being dishonest or disingenuous. The relatively small number of protesters who have made the Hitler analogy, while they definitely made a PR mistake, used the analogy to drive home a point about the ultimate dangers that can arise when we let government grow too big, and they’ve used the most memorable and recognizable symbol around to make that point.

Cross-posted at Bookworm Room

0
  • Jack Schite

    Project much? So you can't excuse the left when they protest a pending war and history proves them to have been correct, yet a sizeable percentage of tea baggers make the Hitler allusion and there weren't really that many?

    Thou doth protest too much if you know what I mean.

  • http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

    tea baggers

    What do gay men have to do with this?

  • http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

    So you can't excuse the left when they protest a pending war and history proves them to have been correct

    How did history "prove them to be correct" exactly? Or is the very act of waging war now all it takes to get compared to Hitler?

  • CoolCzech

    "…yet a sizeable percentage of tea baggers…"

    Posted by Jack Schite

    2009-09-27 18:23:27

    Watch your language, Jack S. What are ya, a High School sophomore?

    We all know what that expression means, and its demeaning not just to the people you refer to, but to yourself to even talk like that.

  • jasamc

    Thou doth protest too much if you know what I mean.

    Posted by Jack Schite

    2009-09-27 18:23:27

    NObody knows what you mean.

  • http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

    Project much? So you can't excuse the left when they protest a pending war and history proves them to have been correct, yet a sizeable percentage of tea baggers make the Hitler allusion and there weren't really that many?

    Thou doth protest too much if you know what I mean.

    Posted by Jack Schite

    2009-09-27 18:23:27

    Not a single statement of fact in your entire post, douche, and we're supposed to apologize or some such crap!!

  • http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com huckupchuck1

    Bookworm writes: "(And I’m defending the use of the Obama/Hitler meme"

    (1) Intentional "typo," (2) Freudian slip, or (3) truth?

    Bookworm writes again: "The relatively small number of protesters who have made the Hitler analogy, while they definitely made a PR mistake, used the analogy to drive home a point about the ultimate dangers that can arise when we let government grow too big, and they’ve used the most memorable and recognizable symbol around to make that point."

    Shorter Bookworm: "Obama IS the equivalent of Hitler, it's just not good PR to say so publicly."

    I guess the answer to my question above is (3) truth. Bookworm really is "defending the use of the Obama/Hitler meme."

  • http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com huckupchuck1

    Bookworm writes: "When Obama, speaking to a black audience, uses a “world leader” as his ventriloquist’s dummy to imply that conservatives are calling him Hitler because he’s a black man who wants to improve poor/black people’s lives, he is being dishonest or disingenuous."

    Only "dishonest or disingenuous"? Didn't you forget "racist"? After all, you DID italicize the word "black" in that first sentence there. Or is calling Obama a racist outright a PR mistake, too?

    Man, we've got the racist AND Hitler meme applied to Obama all in one post! I'm impressed!

  • jasamc

    Or is calling Obama a racist outright a PR mistake, too?

    No, B Hussein is a racist; he admits it in his book.

    Man, we've got the racist AND Hitler meme applied to Obama all in one post! I'm impressed!

    Posted by huckupchuck1

    2009-09-28 05:32:31

    The only person doing that is you.

  • HammerNH

    <blockquote cite="No, Obama is not Hitler. No, the Democrats are not Nazis.">

    I cannot understand why this is stated as if we should take it for granted. If you said the dems are not the 1944 nazis I would be forced to agree. But 10 years earlier the Nazis behaved very much like our current national socialists are behaving.

    Same goes for the Obamunist. In 1934 Hitler was just another world leader – building autobahns, taking away guns, restricting healthcare access.

    Hitler's boogeyman was Judaism.

    O'bambi's is the white man's power.

    How different is that really?

  • HammerNH

    Quote missing above:

    <q>No, Obama is not Hitler. No, the Democrats are not Nazis.</q>

    I cannot understand why this is stated as if we should take it for granted. If you said the dems are not the 1944 nazis I would be forced to agree. But 10 years earlier the Nazis behaved very much like our current national socialists are behaving.

    Same goes for the Obamunist. In 1934 Hitler was just another world leader – building autobahns, taking away guns, restricting healthcare access.

    Hitler's boogeyman was Judaism.

    O'bambi's is the white man's power.

    How different is that really?

  • Mike_M

    Come on guys, the comparison is completely false and disrespectful. There's no way Obama is like Hitler. Hitler wanted his country to be strong.

  • libliever

    "Hitler's boogeyman was Judaism.

    O'bambi's is the white man's power.

    How different is that really?"

    Posted by HammerNH

    2009-09-28 11:42:15

    Do you read what you write?

    And please, don't answer the question, because if you do I'll have to overdose on tylenol.

    Posted by Mike_M

    2009-09-28 12:19:17

    One of the main characteristics of nazism is a strong military, very strong.

    Now, if you go by money spent alone even if Obama cut back the military's overall budget, which he didn't btw, we spend the most money per year than any other country by far, so at least on paper he meets the nazi criteria for a strong military, very strong.

    Now, if we are going to play this nazi comparison further, what would be the equivalent in Obama's administration's vast military to the german nazi's SS; you know their black uniformed allegemeine SS ie political wing of the SS, which was part of the army btw, and did a lot of the genocide and rounding up of political prisoners and genetically inferior folks, gypsies, romani etc etc etc and killed them all or almost.

    Do you guys ever worry about putting all this money into the military so it could be potentially abused by someone like Obama?

    Or is it that you know that Obama could never have a chance to be a nazi because some junior officer would say NO to any CIC order to off a bunch of wingnuts and counter with some kind of benign military coup?

    Or as Hitler himself maintained plausible deniability, that junior officer would say NEIN to any equivalent American allegemeine SS like officer Obama would use as an intermediary to mete out his evil anti white racist nazi agenda?

  • http://TheNixonTape.Com Dick_Nixon

    Obama has called for a national security type force with equal funding of the US Military. However, it could have been another lie from him during the campaign, like how he would make sure we would prevail in Afghanistan, and your taxes won't go up and he wouldn't run up deficits and more debt.

  • http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

    what would be the equivalent in Obama's administration's vast military to the german nazi's SS; you know their black uniformed allegemeine SS ie political wing of the SS

    In Mr. Obama's own words, (from 2 July, 2008) "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Now, the serious student of the Nazi era will observe that conceptually, the force to which Mr. Obama refers is far closer to the Sturm Abteilung (SA, brownshirts) than it is to the Sturm Schutzung (SS, blackshirts). The SS were military and under control of the generals and Hitler, the SA, were quasi-military and lead for most of their history by Ernst Rohm, a large, drunken homosexual with a particular perchant for pederasty. So I think your use of the SS as an exemplar is wrong; you'd be much closer to the truth, as told by Dear Leader himself, in citing the SA as your comparison point to Mr. Obama's proposed civilian national security force.

    Obviously, he hasn't gotten this done yet (thank God his legislative agenda has gotten bogged down and he hasn't accomplished much of anything except pissing $1.2T down the rabbit hole of government waste in the form of Porkulus), but according to his own vision for his presidency, he sees himself commanding not just the military, but this civilian national security force as well.

    "May I zee your paperz, pleasssse?"

  • http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

    This story makes me think of a cross between Dick Gephardt's magical fantasy neighbors he was always quoting (and newscasters when they say "people say" meaning "I say") and John Kerry's "Foreign leaders."

    What a guy.

  • Mike_M

    "Do you guys ever worry about putting all this money into the military so it could be potentially abused by someone like Obama?"

    No. The military swears an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. Hitler made the military swear loyalty personally to him.

    If Obama tries to make the military swear an oath of allegiance to Obama, then it's time for him to go, not the military.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Debbie Spend-it-now is selling America’s future to the Chinese

php developer india
Previous Features

Ads

Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins
An Interview With Ron Paul
The RWN Real-Estate Sale
RWN\'s Favorite Tony Robbins Quotes
Stop Apologizing for Being an American
The Amway Experience
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Advertisement
User Info