Parallels of Power
By: Eddie Clements
This Presidency is not just about power, it is about absolute power, the kind of power exercised by The Creator, at whose right hand many voters feel Barack Obama sits. Some feel this is finally the path to righting the â€œwrongsâ€ that have victimized too many for too long. In fact, many parallels exist – too many – between Adolph Hitlerâ€™s grab for power in the 1930â€™s and the current administration. Is this an unrealistic idea?
The reader may assert, â€œRidiculous. This is America, not NAZI Germany. Our system of checks and balances, along with the other provisions of the Constitution such as free speech, will prevent a totalitarian state. Their parliamentary system at that time aided in the transformation to a one-party state. No group is being identified by common trait and systematically persecuted as were the Jews in Germany at that time. Hitler was an adventurer-conqueror seeking Lebensraum (living room) for the German people who were living in crowded conditions. Hitler exploited Germansâ€™ feelings of resentment over burdensome reparations demanded by victorious nations following WWI, resulting in economic conditions such as high unemployment and little power to lend money to expand businesses, a situation without parallel here. President Obama is not a murderer, and neither are his supporters, like Hitlerâ€™s thuggish SA. The military does not exist here as a class with historical pre-eminence, as it did in Germany with the Prussian tradition, that could be co-opted into supporting the totalitarian state. Besides these undeniable facts, our nation has a history of rejecting candidates by thorough vetting who display any qualities of character that might lead to imperial power in the Chief Executive. Therefore, the contention that Barack Obama could possibly be thought of as a Hitler is absurd on its face and unworthy of consideration.â€
Not an exhaustive list, but all the points stated above have parallels in the current administration. Pointing them out may seem like rhetorical tricks, internalizing them harder. Surely the parallels will be rejected by true believers on the far left, and considered more than a little odd by less ideological voters who supported Obama. Still others will agree, and therefore these concerns should be given voice and objective consideration. No less than the future of our country is at stake.
While a complete treatment would take many words, it should not take a great leap of faith to see our current economic situation can be likened to the war reparations proposition. Unemployment is high and getting higher; credit is tight. The unrest in 1930â€™s Germany led voters to look for a redeemer of their German honor, which was perceived to be lost. Candidate Obama constantly stated the current economy was â€œthe worst since the great Depressionâ€, an untruth still repeated endlessly. Now President Obama says that not passing the current â€œstimulusâ€ bill of 2009 will result in catastrophe for the American economy, an obscene piece of demagoguery. He promised to restore the American Dream, perceived to be lost. He promotes the idea that his plan is uniquely qualified and informed to achieve this end.
Obama has an army of thuggish supporters in ACORN and others less organized, such as the tire slashers disabling get-out-the-vote vehicles. Obama himself exhorted supporters to â€œgo door to door and get in peopleâ€™s facesâ€, soliciting votes. As for physical murder, character assassination is a suitable alternative. For example, just the charge of â€œracistâ€, used by the Obama candidacy, among others, can cause serious damage (see Don Imus, et.al.) Emotional charges like racist, homophobe, bigot, or extremist squelch argument, even though they may be baseless or irrelevant. Physical thuggishness is frowned upon in modern society, but the same result can be achieved without literally being a Sturmabteilung.
Obama takes it upon himself to pronounce the whole U.S. Constitution as inadequate. It just doesnâ€™t contain the stuff it should have. Twisting John F. Kennedyâ€™s famous line into â€œask what your government MUST do for youâ€, Obama manages to turn the concept of limiting powers on its head. The time-honored, time-tested concept of limiting government power becomes all-powerful government. The stated goal is to seize the riches of this nation and â€œspread the wealth aroundâ€. This suggests the Constitution is no barrier to massive change, just follow the prescribed procedures and put in or take out what is needed to gain the desired ends. This is much easier with Democrat majorities in both Houses and in state legislatures, and/or governorâ€™s offices. Even governors of opposing parties can be persuaded to agree on changes if the changes enhance their positions; i.e., promise the states money so they wonâ€™t have to raise taxes. The executive and legislative branches both gain power through the purse. The judicial branch will be co-opted by Supreme Court appointments, as the lower courts have been through the years by liberal judicial appointments widely approved and conservative appointments systematically blocked. Checks and balances as a barrier is thus foreclosed.
In-groups and out-groups are long-standing concepts in psychology, and they have been fully exploited by unprincipled politicians. More than one group with identifiable traits has been singled out and demonized, for example, â€œthe richâ€, Christians, conservatives, even private business people. As out-groups, these serve as a parallel to Jews in 1930â€™s Germany. Each out-group has been described by its shortcomings, real or imagined, that lead to victimization of some in-group. The in-group can then turn on the out-group with character assassination to reinforce their sense of superiority, which is the whole idea, because everyone naturally wants to be a part of the superior group, right? Though the rich, Christians, conservatives, and business people may have greater numbers added all together, they are made out to be a minority of inclusively common, or widely accepted, opinion. It helps tremendously that victim groups, the ones Democrats exploit to gain power, are themselves contentious and donâ€™t mind at all engaging in character assassination. The objects of their rage, the out-groups, tend to have qualities of character that inhibit returning that rage in kind. Silence is therefore falsely assumed to be acquiescence, or inability to refute the in-groupâ€™s (or Democratsâ€™) argument, much like the Jews marched off to gas chambers without fighting back.
By extension, the out-groups just described are things President Obama needs to conquer. No one thinks Obama is the type of adventurer out for military conquest for any reasons, but he neither has to be, nor has he stated that as a goal. This is a large country not facing population pressures and the inability to deal with them Germany faced, and geopolitics has changed greatly. Obamaâ€™s object of conquest is the capitalist system, which offers benefits to some that may not be available to all. The reasons for that inability for equal outcome may be physical, intellectual, emotional, temperamental, or some other, but no matter. Unequal outcome is an ideological insult to the liberal, or socialist, view of universal equality and equanimity. Opportunity is not enough; the outcomes must be more or less equal. The ongoing campaign to expand centralized power and control is the first step in the process of wholesale system â€œchangeâ€, offering â€œhopeâ€ to the less-well rewarded under the present capitalist system. To achieve this wholesale change requires disabling the two-party political system, because it provides checks and balances, which in turn must be negated. Therefore establishing a one-party state is necessary to conquer and vanquish capitalism, and substitute something else.
Some of Obamaâ€™s cabinet and other nominations are a vulgar cohort the likes of which this nation has never experienced. Double-speak is the order of the day. No lobbyists mean they are hired as necessary. No one is above the law means it is OK not to pay taxes if you are a Democrat. Ethical means a porn lawyer is OK for the number two legal post in America. Bipartisanship means Obama will bribe members of the opposing party (or his own) with position appointments. Surrounding himself with ideological kinsmen negates the need to co-opt the military. Just being Commander-In-Chief of historically honorable military men who refuse to disobey orders, President Obama knows they will do as they are told.
Finally, there are the matters of free speech and vetting. Normally, or historically, the free press provided the vehicle to relay information to the public concerning a candidateâ€™s personal history. Using that information allowed voters to make an informed decision about which candidates should have a chance for the highest executive office. This past election year, 2008, Americans witnessed a shameful disregard for the duties specifically assigned to the press. Instead of objectively vetting candidate Obama, the press almost universally promoted his candidacy. This required purposefully ignoring any facts impacting Obama negatively, while accentuating his positives out of proportion to the candidateâ€™s true persona. In addition, the press actively assassinated the character of opposing candidates, first Hillary Clinton, then John McCain and Sarah Palin. The particulars could be enumerated, but it makes no difference. The true crime lies in the pressâ€™ neglect of their function. In essence, they turned the famous Supreme Court decision concerning free speech around, shouting â€œthere is no fireâ€ in a burning building. The result is a public unable to interpret the Presidentâ€™s misleading speeches, because he has been presented as a politician with traditional American values who speaks directly to their concerns better than previous politicians. Unfortunately, his values are decidedly non-traditional. His political philosophy is unashamedly radical. This is what a â€œcommunity organizerâ€ is, a radical who desires non-traditional change. The public was not told any of that. Those who were unable to figure it out have now put us all at sea without a paddle or sail. Worse, Obama favors silencing talk radio, a direct assault on free speech. So much for the Constitution.
Unrealistic? No, but agree or disagree you have been informed; it has been said outright. The current Presidency is a grab for power unprecedented in the U.S. that resembles all too closely the rise of NAZI (National Socialist) power in Germany. If you donâ€™t think so, ask yourself why the White House is trying to get the census takers to report directly to them instead of the Commerce Department. The census results allow Congressional districts to be drawn; the White House wants to favor Democrats. Our best hope is to spread the Gospel and get as many as possible to our side, before religion is regulated also.