Barack the Black Hitler
Barack the Black Hitler: How Obama’s stated goals may lead to the deaths of roughly six million people and the striking similarities between Obama’s personality and methods for acquiring power and Hitler’s.
For most people, Hitler embodies pure evil. Because of this, his name is often invoked in debates over character. These sorts of comparisons are almost always unwarranted and wildly exaggerated. But now America has a new star politician, Obama, and the parallels between he and the most loathed man in history are very real. In this article, we will examine the methods of assuming power employed by both men, and the role of their decisions in the lives (and deaths) of six millions jews.
The substance behind words:
We can tell a lot about what a politician thinks of his audience based on his approach to speaking to them. A politician that believes his audience is mature and intelligent will appeal to their logic rather than emotion. He will tell them the unpleasant truth because he believes his audience can handle it. A politician that does not think very highly of his audience will do the opposite. He will remain as vague as possible and appeal to their emotions above all else.
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
— Adolf Hitler
It is not hard to deduce Obama’s opinions of his audience. When he’s in public he uses vague terms such as “hope” and “change” rather than attempt to define exactly what it is he intends to do. He appeals to the authority of examples in history in order to imbue their qualities into his words rather than extoll the virtues of any specific policy he proposes. Let’s not forget his creative “borrowing” of other people’s words either. (see: Deval Patrick) In essence, he aims to inspire, not inform.
“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”
— Adolf Hitler
Behind closed doors, however, Obama shows another side to him as he attempts social psychoanalysis on the people whose votes he seeks:
“[People in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
— Obama, at a San Francisco fundraiser. (Behind closed doors)
Insults and condescension aside, what is wrong with this picture? Why doesn’t Obama share his amatuer psychoanalyst-side with the rest of the people? Surely a great orator as Obama can do it without insulting them, right? It would be impressive for Obama to tell the American people exactly what they’re thinking (as he seems to think himself capable of doing), but it appears he doesn’t seem to think highly enough of voters to tell them what he thinks, only what he wants them to feel.
Tactics for seizing control:
“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.”
— Adolf Hitler
Its no big secret that Obama bases most of his appeal with youth voters. This is a common occurrence in the history of the rise of tyrants. Most are supported fervently by the young. Hitler famously used this technique to gain power. The tyrant-to-be must hide his true ambitions behind a mask of emotional appeal in order to seduce the gullible and unwary. The youth most often falls into this category, not yet “broken in” to the number one rule in electing a ruler: watch their actions, not their lips.
“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.”
— Adolf Hitler
In the year 2000, a fierce primary raged in the Republican party. Two candidates, John McCain and George W. Bush polarized the party. Some sleazy personal attacks against McCain appeared at a crucial moment. In the end, Bush won, but not without sowing the seeds of animosity. McCain believed he had been the victim of some dirty tricks and attributed the attacks to the Bush campaign. Bush denied it. The vitriol was so bad that many expected McCain to leave the party. By most accounts, including the Democrats that met with him to discuss such matters, he almost did. Nevertheless, to the surprise of many wide-eyed pundits, McCain strolled into the convention in support of Bush. Chalk it up to character or political posturing for another run. Despite this, the rivalry did not subside. The two men represented opposite ends of the Republican party.
In the years to follow, McCain became a vocal critic of the management of the Iraq war. When the blueprints for the Surge rolled out, he was one of the first to embrace it while rejecting the Bush doctrine. He has also been critical of the wasteful spending which the administration allowed and even its tax cuts. He earned the scorn of a lot of Republican leaders for this, as well as his “maverick” handle from the media, seeing him as a thorn in the administration’s side. Despite their many differences and long history of rivalry, Obama attempts to caricature McCain as essentially a Bush-clone in many of his speeches.
“No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush term…”
— Barack Obama
Returning to the subject of Obama’s views of voters, what do you think this tells us about Obama? Surely the people must know Bush’s policies, they’ve been the law of the land for nearly eight years. Surely, any voter interested in the issues would study the policies of the candidates carefully. If one candidate’s policies were identical to the current administration’s, wouldn’t it be readily obvious even to the most untrained eye? Why would the average voter need Obama to tell them that Bush and McCain are the same person if its obvious? Only if they wouldn’t get that impression from looking at the record, only if it weren’t true.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
— Adolf Hitler
(For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that a version of this quote first originated with Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister. In this particular quote, Hitler was paraphrasing him.)
“Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be “discovered” by an election.”
— Adolf Hitler
January 2nd, 1996, Obama began his under-handed crusade for the senate. With a crack team of lawyers, he challenged hundreds of vote petitions and managed to eliminate all of his fellow Democrats from the ballot. One fellow candidate was Alice Palmer. Up to that point, she had been grooming Obama to succeed her once she retired. Not willing to wait, Obama took matters into his own hands and denied her the right to run for her own seat. Alice Palmer is the same woman who essentially launched his political career. Apparently, Obama didn’t trust the voters to “discover” a great man in that election, so he chose for them.
The genes of tyranny:
Obama and Hitler both have displayed a penchant for eliminating “undesirable” infants. Hitler’s case is well known; he believed he could create a master race through selective breeding, mandatory sterilization of “undesirable parents” and abortions. Obama’s methods lack the scope of ambition but the end result is similar – Obama has legalized the murder of already-born infants.
In 2002, an important bill known as the “Induced Infant Liability Act” cropped up in the Illinois senate. The purpose of the bill was to protect infants who had been born alive after a failed abortion from being “aborted” after birth. In the United States, the second a person is born, they become a U.S. citizen. Taking the life of such a citizen is murder. That is something both pro-choice and pro-life advocates can agree on. Even the most pro-abortion lobby in the country, NARAL, did not oppose it nor the federal version of the law.
Obama on the other hand, did oppose it, TWICE. In doing so, he helped establish the legality of murder of infant Americans in his state.
Both Obama and Hitler are of mixed racial heritage, and distort this heritage to control public opinion. Hitler hated jews and made a career of it, so he hid the fact that jewish blood ran through his veins. Obama has made a career out of embracing his “blackness” and African American heritage. His first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”, was based entirely on that premise. There’s just one problem: Obama isn’t an African American, Obama is an Arab American.
Obama is 50% caucasian, 43.75% arab, and 6.25% black. According to federal law, an American citizen must be at least 1/8th, or 12.5% of a particular race to be considered a member of that race. Obama meets that criteria easily to be considered an Arab American but not African American.
(The astute reader will have noticed that being that Obama is not truly African American, the title of this article is inaccurate. I have decided upon that title rather than an alternative due to the public’s general familiarity with Obama as an “African American”.)
Pop Quiz: Which of these quotes was said by Hitler and which was said by Obama?
A. “…our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.”
B. “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”
If these two statements seem similiar, it’s because they both derive from the same philosophy: socialism. NAZI stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. The socialists of Hitler’s era aren’t much different from those of today in terms of ideology, though most socialists of the modern era are called “latte liberals”. Indeed, Hitler would’ve fit right in with such a group. He was a vegetarian, pro-abortion, an advocate for strict gun control, desirous of universal health care, and continually extolling the virtues of state control.
Someone once asked me how Obama could become a socialist. I replied by asking how he could not. Obama has been surrounded by marxists his entire life. I’m not sure that he has contacted non-marxist/socialist ideas within his close circle of friends even once.
His father was a communist. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. Obama explicitly admits to seeking out marxist professors in his autobiographical work and attending socialist meetings. His close friends, like Bill Ayers the former terrorist, leadership at Trinity, all hold distinctly socialist/marxist views. Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the entire senate for 2007. He was even more radical than senators who were openly socialist.
See ratings here: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Obama’s socialism will be an issue to voters.
(Quote A. was Obama, quote B. was Hitler.)
The audacity of deception.
Throughout the campaign, Obama has shown himself to be extremely “loose” with the facts. This is not unusual with politicians in general. However, while most politicians fib or exaggerate when telling stories in order to look more grandiose, Obama lies to cover up the real Obama. Apparently, Obama doesn’t trust voters enough to tell them his real positions. The lies of Obama are well documented, so I will only discuss one, an important one, here.
The Obama claim:
“When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause…
…He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.”
“A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.”
So, not only did the bill not pass as Obama claimed, but it wasn’t even his anymore, after he let others rewrite it. Most disturbing of all, is WHY he allowed Exelon to essentially take control of the very bill meant to reign in their practices of radioactive leaks:
“Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”
In this particular Obama lie, Obama protrays himself as a champion of the people, taking up their concerns and confronting special interests run amok. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
What is also particularly troubling is our press’s unwillingness to ask Obama the sorts of questions to expose these falsehoods. The above New York Times article is something of an exception, you’ll notice it is dated February 3, before they became shills for Obama. Indeed, in the rare instances in which Obama has been confronted with questions regarding his deceptions or questionable ties, he responds by fleeing – literally.
“The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”
— Adolf Hitler
For a fairly extensive list of Obama lies, try this compilation: http://savagepolitics.com/?page_id=326
The ugly head of antisemitism rears itself again:
Hitler’s antisemitism is well documented. But what of Obama’s?
In the 1930’s, Hitler ran on a platform that included open antisemitism. At that time and place, it was politically viable to do so. In the modern era and in the U.S., it is not viable to be openly opposed to any race, including jews. Nevertheless, Obama has knowingly jeapordized his chances for the presidency by willfully associating himself with countless antisemites: Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley, Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, El-Hady, etc. Some of his own advisors have called for the U.S. to cut off funding to Israel, have been caught negotiating with known islamic extremist groups, and have expressed sympathy and praise for Hamas.
There appears to be only two conclusions we can reach from this:
A. Obama is antisemitic but hides it from voters.
B. Obama is incredibly tolerant of antisemitism.
Regardless of Obama’s true feelings, this sort of approach to something as poisonous as racism is disturbing and dangerous.
“Obama has taken no steps to moderate his church’s anti-Israel invective. Obama’s affiliation with Wright aligns with his choice of financial backers and foreign policy advisors. To varying degrees, all of them exhibit hostility towards Israel and support for appeasing jihadists.”
— Jerusalem Post.
The second coming of the holocaust:
The next president of the United States will inherit a looming crisis: Iran. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the annihilation of Israel on more than one occassion, and has promised to be the man to do it. In that same breath, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s nation is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. As he has stated his aim is to annihilate israel, has the power to give such an order, and is developing the capacity to meet such an end, it is reasonable to take this threat seriously. Very seriously.
The best solution to this problem will come from careful diplomacy, not appeasement. Appeasement is a word that is tossed around rather carelessly these days, so please allow me to explain the distinctions with an analogy:
Scenario A. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon, another man, Mr. O, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he’s doing. Mr. Nari responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. O is alarmed and asks Mr. Nari, “What do you want?” “Just to talk, that’s all,” responds Mr. Nari. Mr. O is relieved. All he wanted was to talk! So Mr. O obliges him and begins delivering a powerful argument against shooting people. Meanwhile, Mr. Nari nods his head in agreement as he keeps on working at putting together his gun. Soon he springs the last part into place, raises his weapon, and shoots the little girl dead. “What did you do that for!?” demands Mr. O. To which Mr. Nari replies, “You idiot, I told you that was what I was going to do and you sat here chatting away, giving me the time I needed to pull it off.”
Scenario B. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon, another man, Mr. M, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he’s doing. Mr. Nari responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. M is alarmed and pulls out a gun of his own and points it at Mr. Nari. “Don’t even think about it,” warns Mr. M. “Whoa, relax, I just want to talk,” says Mr. Nari. “Throw that away, and then we’ll talk,” replied Mr. M. Mr. Nari pauses, stares at the gun pointed at him, then reluctantly obliges. And so they talk.
Scenario A is appeasement, scenario B is diplomacy with preconditions. Most tyrants with diabolical ambition have complex schemes that require a lot of time to acheive. To acquire the time needed, they often use diplomacy as a stalling mechanism. So long as they are giving up nothing in the talks, they are getting something for nothing. That is why the word “appeasement” is used to describe these sorts of situations: the well-intentioned head of state gives up something the tyrant needs (time) for nothing in hopes he’ll change his mind. History has shown this to be ineffective. That is the purpose of preconditions. A precondition is something the leader must give up before formal diplomacy is engaged. In the case of Iran, it would be their nuclear weapons program.
Of the three most major candidates this election season has seen, only one of them wants to engage in the sort of diplomacy described in scenario A, Barack Obama. Ahmadinejad wants the time necessary to complete his genocidal ambitions, and according to Obama, he intends to give it to him. Obama must understand that his methods consist of appeasement at some level, because when Bush gave a speech about appeasers without naming a name, political party, or even national origin, Obama decided he must’ve been talking about Obama.
There are approximately six million jews in Israel today. If Obama’s policy of appeasement becomes U.S. policy, then Ahmadinejad will get his wish. Never again, is the slogan of Holocaust survivors. If Obama gets a chance to enact this policy, we will have let them down. Perhaps then, when an entire nation is wiped off the map with millions dead, people will finally learn that appeasement does not work. Then again, you’d think we would’ve learned that lesson from Hitler and the first Holocaust.
Holocaust deniers often pick up on one fact to stake their claim: Hitler never issued an order for the Final Solution. This is true. It was actually the brainchild of one his subordinates. Hitler merely allowed it to happen, and in doing so, was responsible for it. If Obama follows his stated position regarding Iran, he will find himself in a similar position – staring at the annihilation of six million innocent lives and doing nothing to stop it.
Pop Quiz 2. Name this leader:
The nation was in shambles. A previous ruler had led the country into an unnecessary war, the economy was failing, and a sense of depression filled the air. Then, a new leader emerged. He was a powerful speaker, offering hope, change, and a fix to the economy. He wrote two books about his experiences and used his literary work to propel him to success. He was an open christian with some muslim friends. He called for unity and considered himself an advocate of peace. Some of his political opponents cast him as naive and inexperienced. He also had alot of radical ties, but the media, and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that.
Who is he?
The answer is Hitler. It’s something of a trick question, because nothing in the characteristics of the above described character bear any distinction between Obama and Hitler. The only difference is that the final sentence implies that the leader has already been elected, while Obama has not been elected. Yet.
This article has put a great deal of focus on the similarities between Hitler and Obama, and they are indeed numerous. Indeed, I never even got around to most of it, such as the Hitler/Obama muslim connection, or gestures they share in their oratory, or even much depth into their shared views of socialism. (I will discuss Obama’s socialist/marxist views at length in a later post.) An encyclopedia could be written documenting the parallels.
However, I’d like to take a moment to discuss the differences. For one thing, Hitler was competent. Hitler was also quite bold, while I doubt anyone would ever accuse Obama of personal courage. He also invaded much of Europe, while Obama seems content with merely socializing the U.S. and watching a new holocaust unfold.
In other areas, Obama shares greater similarities to other past leaders. For example, his economic policies are very similar to that of President Hoover, the man credited with essentially causing (or at least worsening) the Great Depression. They are both economic isolationists and protectionistic to the core. He also draws a parallel to Neville Chamberlin, who famously attempted to appease Hitler, in terms of foreign policy. In fact, for any student of history, it would appear that Obama sifted through a history book, collected all of the worst traits and policies of leaders past, then compiled them to make the bedrock of his campaign.
The irony of all this is that it looks as though Obama was honest about one thing – he will bring change. If history is any guide, we can expect his sort of change to contain the mores of Marx, the political ambition of Hitler, the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlin, and the economics of Hoover. It’s a change that looks remarkably the same. It’s a change that, if implemented, could alter this country into something so destitute, so diminished, so destroyed, so devoid of any signs of its origin, that none of us may even recognize it.
If you want change in 2008, and lots of it, vote for Obama. It may be the last vote you ever cast.