The onset of ODS
posted at 10:50 am on November 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
For the past seven-plus years, the Left has suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Well, actually, the rest of us have suffered from their embrace of BDS, which one might think would inoculate us from any related maladies. As Jake Tapper notes, though, the onset of Obama Derangement Syndrome might prove that wrong:
We all remember “Bush derangement syndrome” — defined by Charles Krauthammer as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”
We already need a name for the reverse disorder.
Rep. Paul Broun, R-Georgia, recently said that he fears President-elect Obama may create a security force akin to the Gestapo to impose a Marxist dictatorship.
“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Broun told The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may – may not, I hope not – but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”
Broun refers to this portion of a speech Obama gave in July in Colorado. The media dropped two sentences from its reporting of the speech, which set off critics when World Net Daily reported it:
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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.
At the time, Obama’s supporters claimed that he meant the Peace Corps and other volunteer organizations. That seems a stretch, but so does Broun’s interpretation of it. As I wrote at the time, the nation already has a number of non-military national security forces, including the FBI, ICE, Border Patrol, and so on. If we want to fund that better, many conservatives would agree, but not funding it to the same extent as the military. In the context of Obama’s remarks above, though, he fairly clearly meant to at least include a volunteer force in outreach within and outside the US as some sort of Department of Peace-like indirect boost to national security.
Nothing in that speech hints at a Gestapo-like organization at all. I’d agree that we have to remain vigilant at all times to ensure that the government doesn’t try to impose such a regime upon us, but this is an extremely thin reed to grasp for such a conclusion. Although I supported a freer hand at the NSA in monitoring communications with one end in the US for possible terrorist activities given the dangers we face in this era, it’s far easier for the government to turn that into a Gestapo than what Obama proposed. That’s why I understood the Left’s opposition to it (as well as a small minority of conservatives) and thought reasonable safeguards against potential abuse were appropriate, as the eventual compromise in Congress provided.
If we plan to offer a rational alternative to the coming debacle of the next two years, then we’d better stick to facts and eschew hyperbole. We need to oppose the reality of the radical agenda proposed by Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress, not fantasies spun out of context-free snippets of speeches. The more critics invoke Hitler and Stalin instead of Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson, the better the reality of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will seem in 2010.
Addendum: Also, can we please get rid of this canard?
“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”
No, he wasn’t. Hitler was never elected to any office. He became Chancellor because of a deal struck between political factions warring with each other in the twilight of Weimar Germany, appointed to the position by President von Hindenburg. The Nazis never even won a majority in the Reichstag, and in fact lost seats in the last free elections before Hitler became Chancellor. Unlike in most parliamentary systems, the executive in Germany did not need to hold a seat in the Reichstag. The Weimar system never had the support of the German people, and the reversion to strong-man rule was almost inevitable.
And unlike Germany, we will get free elections in two years. If we want to win majorities back, we’ll need to stop invoking Nazis at every turn.
Update: I’m going to add this here rather than reposting it every 50 comments or so in the thread. Nothing in this post says we should refrain from criticizing Obama. I’m just arguing that we have to stick to the facts rather than screeching historically inaccurate references to Nazis every time we disagree with Obama. No one will have any credibility left if we all give into the impulse to act like the Kos Kiddies for the next two years.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next »
Predictions for US under Obama administration:
Economy worse
US to lose AAA credit rating
Freedom on the wane worldwide
At least one major terrorist attack successfully carried out in the US
That said, we need to let Obama fail. Don’t put up a big fight on his policies unless there are very serious national security implications, or lifetime appointments (judges). Otherwise, just point out the flaws publicly, let the Dems make their moves, don’t throw a fit, and let them fail. This will allow their policies to be completely discredited because they got to do exactly what they wanted.
indythinker on November 11, 2008 at 1:22 PM
See, I can tell Big Old Dog and I have both been around long enough to see how the sausage is made in politics.
What so many people refuse to believe even when the evidence is right in front of them continues to astound me. After all we’ve seen and hear with our very own eyes and ears, now CONSERVATIVES want to defend Obama?
Don’t they get that the constitution is not some magic wand? The JUDICIARY interprets it, so Obama will fill the judiciary with radicals who will not honor it. Habeus corpus for combatants, anyone? Chinese Muslins came iwhtin one hearinf of being releasedin FL, have we all forgotten?
The EXECUTIVE brach is supposed to DEFEND and ENFORCE the constitutio, but we have elected a POTUS who doesn’t like its negative liberties!!!! WTF is wrong with you people? (not you BigDog and Madison, I know you get it) but PEOPLE WAKE UP.
I guess our founding fathers were deranged too. Oh, how we need that kind of derangment now. The kind that is UNAFRAID to look at reality. The kind that is WISE enough to look at people’s past specific behaviors to warn and plan and organize resistance.
Mark my words, the FIRST thing to go is free speech and passing of the Fairness Doctrine. And no one here is concerned that the CEO of google is Obama’s best friend? Why do y’all think that is, may I ask? All our IP’s will be tracked, the “subversive” websites (ie – pro freedom, pro American) just may start to fall off the index and it sure would be hard to find each other then, wouldn’t it?
JustTruth101 on November 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM
We’re also not caught in an era where fascism and communism are the two dominant, competing ideologies in advanced nations, as well as being conceptually new in terms of being redefined. We’re not having businessmen attempt overthrows of the government. Western nations aren’t at the point of trucking around wheelbarrows full of worthless currency.
MadisonConservative on November 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I don’t think Ed is looking at the guy with anything other than expectant watchfulness. I believe the gist was his desire that we avoid the more obvious inanity that has gone on among the Left.
I don’t recall where Ed called for us to join hands in service to Obama, but simply allow the man to actually take office. He did not say not comment, but keep the vitriol to the manageable levels is all.
I think that’s a fair request. I personally think Obama is about as communist as you get this side of Putin, but hey, that’s an opinion and will remain an opinion until further evidence is in.
kybowexar on November 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM
The scary thing is, conditions could easily get awfully close to what they were in 1930s which made the rise of the dictators possible… A worsening economic crisis and an uncertain security situation with a Messianic figure for a leader is a dangerous situation…
TheBigOldDog on November 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
I was supporting you up until that post
DarkCurrent on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
So in other words, you can’t think of any.
I’ll give you a hint.
It’s the Supreme Court and the filibuster in the Senate. There is precious little else remaining.
Obama will place nominations on the court and the filibuster is not immune from assault. And these are merely parliamentary procedures assuming no other methods are deployed.
However, I await your next ignorant reply, which I expect in mere seconds as you skip the reading of that article.
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
If the Republican Party becomes the party of crazy people, I am leaving the party. I became a Republican because it was the party of logical ideas (free markets, free trade, originalist judges, individual liberty, lower taxes, etc.) When idiots make these statements, someone in the Republican Party must be assigned to point out that the Republican at issue is a member of the crazy (read: Ron Paul) part of the party, and we offer a thousand apologies for this craziness. If not, we will all be branded an idiot by the MSM.
RedSoxNation on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
No. Now, if he has that for the next eight years and is able to somehow stay in power after his term is over, maybe through a national tragedy the way Rudy stayed in for a little while after 9/11, only magnified by 100, then maybe.
But seriously, have a little faith in the government this country established not that long ago. It isn’t so weak as to be destroyed by one man. Now, if we have men like Obama in the White House for the next two decades along with a liberal Congress and a liberal Supreme Court, then sure, we won’t recognize America anymore.
Esthier on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
It would only take a Constitutional Convention to break down the “enormous structural barriers” and secure for marxists the tools necessary to reach their goals.
A few years ago there was talk about such a convention, but cooler heads prevailed.
But with today’s Congress, and tomorrow’s Whitehouse, and next year’s SCOTUS, such a scenario is, in my cretinous mind coupled with ODS, a certainty.
davidk on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
On “Obama as Hitler,” I don’t doubt they have some similar personality traits. Ultimately, though, Obama is not the ferocious opponent that Hitler was. Comparing the two is like comparing Captain Hook (Obama) to Sauron (Hitler). That said, on core issues of liberty and national security, we’re going to fight for what’s right.
indythinker on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
No, all he did is dutifully ridicule the comparison no matter how apt.
TheBigOldDog on November 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Er … what do you think Paulson meant when he said that we were “500 trades from Armageddon” or what Buffet meant with his “G-d help us” if the bailout didn’t go through?
progressoverpeace on November 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Right on the money, Alden. Here we go again with a world leader who will be overcompensating for the love he never got from his parents. No wonder he’s “detached”…and it’s this detachment that is worrisome.
misslizzi on November 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM
The first ODS meme started way before the “hitler” analogy, which was – as always – pretty retarded.
It is not based upon that analogy, but is simply the deflection used by democrats to temper any criticism of Obama.
lorien1973 on November 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
No, plenty of people are saying that.
I’ve already read that article. You act like you’re bringing something new, some kind of game changer, but you’re just recycling things others have parroted to you in the first place.
You’re really not worth a response. Doesn’t mean I won’t give you one. I often waste my time on trolls.
Esthier on November 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Hitler was able to win popular support because he got Germans working again and the economy moving. Obama is not going to be able to kickstart the economy. Trust me. We’re looking at an L-shaped recovery for the next four years or more (no strong economic growth). As people’s fortunes fail to improve under Obama, their support for Obama will cool.
indythinker on November 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM
You know, I am sure you meant that in the best possible light, but you know I can’t help but think – are you nuts?
I’m an American. I do not like or trust our future president, but I hope he does extremely well – for the good of the country. Not my political beliefs.
I hope he does not manage to assist in the dismantling of the greatest nation on earth, but I am sure not hoping he does get that done!
Conservatives have a valuable truth, it can survive competition in the marketplace. We do not need the utter destruction of our country to make a point. (Granted I’m using a bit of hyperbole of your comment to make a point, but dang man – are you an American first or a whatever?)
kybowexar on November 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Good Lord! Is this how we talk ourselves out of stating the truth? “Well, you may want to watch what you say or else they’ll label you with ODS”. Who cares? The left doesn’t respect anything the right says anyway.
Stop trying to put a politically correct damper on what people actually think. EVERYTHING in Obama’s past indicates HE WILL try to usurp the Constitution and minimalize if not erase some BOR Amendments. I have no doubt Supreme Court challenges to the 1st and 2nd Amendments will be brought during his “rule”.
This is no time to claim any sort of moral high ground, the left won the election by being in the sewer.
darwin on November 11, 2008 at 1:29 PM
And thank you.
This is indeed and private forum, not owned by either you or I. And the comments allowed by the owners are “protected” speech.
If one cannot stand the heat, he/she should get out of the kitchen.
davidk on November 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
what’s this we $h!t white man… I haven’t compared him to Nazis and I haven’t seen anyone here doing it. we compare him to a socialist and he is one.
Kaptain Amerika on November 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I also started noticing a transitional BDS, mostly overseas. Berlusconi Derangement Syndrome. I guess it was a temporary one in order to avoid anger vacuum amongst the “hopers” and “changers”.
mile66 on November 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I imagine there are people here who think the notion that there is a block of socialists in our own congress is “crazy”, too (sounds crazy, sure) – but last night, in discussing the topic on LGF, someone came up with this link to support just that assertion:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000511075109/www.dsausa.org/about/index.html
I had posted that the Democratic Socialists of America had boasted of their relationship with the Congressional Progressive Caucus (at this time, about seventy members of the congress, I think) on their website. At one point, the DSA/CPC removed references to them on their site, for obvious reasons – but the internet is forever, I guess, because some of this stuff is archived. (Thanks to the LGFer who dug this up, lest I look “crazy”.)
I agree that we don’t want to go overboard with our imaginations, but when something is demonstrably factual, I don’t see any good reason we should deny reality.
capitalist piglet on November 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I’m a big fan of looking at evidence before making a judgment or decision. Knowing full well the problems involved in proving a negative, I’d rather err on the side of caution until the preponderance of evidence points to Obama not seeking to use/abuse his power to push a radical agenda. Right now the evidence, based on his past comments and actions, shows him willing to use/abuse power to do just what I describe above. Those familiar with scientific research know what Type 1 and Type 2 errors are. Is it better to think you’re right when you’re actually wrong or better to assume you’re wrong when you are not? The consequences of my assuming I’m right where I fight as hard as I can to keep Obama from any potential abuse of power, and ending up being wrong are minimal compared to my ignoring the possibility and ending up in a nation that only resembles America in its similar geography.
davenp35 on November 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
The bulk of american ignorants, idiots and racists have elected a marxist as president of the US.
Some of Obama’s first plans are to kill the free press; drastically cut defense spending so that we will have to surrender; suspend drilling for new oil resources so that we have to keep depending on our enemies for oil; maintain the economy chaos in the country so that the people accept his socialistic/marxist economic ideas; botton line we deserve it for being a corrupt society, drugs, abortions, atheism, etc.
tocoloro on November 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Buffett meant “God help us poor investment bankers if we have to give up our parties”.
So far, the bailout’s only progress is to allow these irresponsible jackasses, who were one of the key parts of the problem in the first place, to continue to ignore the mess they made by swilling champagne while the market plummets.
MadisonConservative on November 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
You know what “Nazi” stands for, right?
capitalist piglet on November 11, 2008 at 1:32 PM
BDS did not help the Democrats. If anything, it turned independent voters off. ODS won’t help Republicans. Treat Obama like the Dems should have treated Bush. Be the honorable opposition. Then when his socialist policies fail miserably, Republicans having voiced honest but polite dissent, America will see what a fool Obama is, and what foolishness socialism is. Of course, we will have high unemployment and inflation and a bad stock market for awhile, but it will lay the groundwork for future growth and prosperity.
indythinker on November 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Christoph, I agree with you to a extent, but it would be fear mongering to say that he is the second coming and that this country will ever be Communist or Nazi, and wrong as the Bush deranged crowd. It just will never happen on our country as long as we have citizens that won’t shut up.
I think having that basic philosophy undeterred during the election process, then implementing such philosophy when President is destructive and will cause major dissent among Americans. The question is how will that dissent be handled bu his administration.
I would argue with anyone that Bush allowed free speech and dissent run rampant during his presidency and and it did, not only in the U.S. but world wide. People’s careers were saved by Bush being president. People made 100’s of millions of dollars dissenting & ridiculing Bush. Books, movies, documentaries, tv shows, talk shows, comedians, etc.. all benefited from freedom of speech during Bush’s 8 years and not one of them was squelched, jailed or bullied into shutting up. Even Sarah Palin’s mere exposure for a few months brought comedians and the ’same crowd’ out of the woodwork doing what they do best in demonized and destroying her character.
I already saw how dissent was handled by the Obama campaign. We already saw some warning signs during the election and I think Americans should be concerned. How would he handle anything on the same level that Bush experienced? I don’t think he would handle well at all and we would really see us losing our freedoms and we can start with the Fairness Doctrine.
Anyone disagree with this?
Indy928 on November 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
There’s a difference between heat from the oven and the mouse feces in the corner. The comment in question is the latter.
MadisonConservative on November 11, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Okay, Esthier, so this is your 3rd opportunity.
Answer the question.
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Estheir, I call it “kick the can”, it’s pointless but we like hearing the can rattle.
thomasaur on November 11, 2008 at 1:34 PM
buy your guns now and hide them, keep your ammo dry; we will need them later to defend our country
tocoloro on November 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Well said.
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM
“Taking this in light with his compulsory (then changed) public service requirement for students, it is not a far reach to think he’s going for a similar system as is in place in China or the old USSR, where every able-bodied man was considered to be in the military.”
Correction – man and woman.
Alana on November 11, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Madison, I was not arguing for the bailout, but trying to explain what other people thought would happen – what we were indeed on the brink of. Our monetary system was on the brink of collapse, which would have led to something worse than just carting around wheelbarrows full of cash to buy milk.
But, forget the Buffet quote (I despise Buffet, anyway) and just concentrate on Paulson’s “500 trades from Armageddon”. Now tell me about how stable our monetary system is. Incidentally, the world’s trade and reserve currency, which would make it all a little, itty-bit worse than any other monetary collapse in history.
progressoverpeace on November 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Why don’t you try answering the question? Because that comment was easier and you don’t have a friggin’ clue what a good answer would be?
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
MadisonConservative on November 11, 2008 at 1:14 PM
DarkCurrent on November 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
davidk on November 11, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Oops, cretinous mistake.
davidk on November 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
In 1959 cubans wanted change and see what they got; Venezuelans wanted change, Bolivia wanted change, Ecuador wanted change, Nicaragua wanted change; the change all of them got was marxist dictatorships; the US also wanted change and got the same
tocoloro on November 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
I think he is referring to the particular extent of evil that the Nazis were compared to what is commonly known about socialists. (No need to correct me, I do know the depth of depravity that socialism stands for, but most folks do not see that.)
I too see the potential of our losing our liberties in this country. This whole thing is an experiment. A brilliant idea founded on eternal truths backed by a fear of a Creator. This place, America, works because of that fact, but it is only the working of an idea. What I fear, is people like Obama, have another idea – one that is completely counter to the Idea of America.
The Constitution will not prevent our becoming something like the Nazis (or worse), it is the enforcing of that Constitution – which happens to be the will of the people. That is the great part of America – and the unnerving part as well. How many people actually realize that we are near very deep hole.
kybowexar on November 11, 2008 at 1:39 PM
You need to factor into your thinking that you have already been branded an idiot by the MSM.
Your fear here is what the Democrats are using to prevent you from clearly identifying the current danger and taking appropriate action.
It is always the fear of Democrats’ reactions that prevents Republicans from taking decisive, effective action. You need to get it into your head:
1) They think you’re an idiot. Today. Regardless of what you say. You cannot earn their respect.
2) Their outrage about what you just said is feigned. They’re not outraged; they’re mugging for the camera. They do not believe their own positions.
3) They do not value the Loyal Opposition. They do not value a Robust Exchange of Ideas. They want to silence you absolutely. This is war. You cannot win it by being nice.
philwynk on November 11, 2008 at 1:40 PM
And I tell you this, beware of what you say in the Internet; Obama’s marxist plans will involve knowing who in the US is against them and spreading the truth
tocoloro on November 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
davidk on November 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Good for you Doctor. I’m still working through the ODS 12-step program.
Right_of_Attila on November 11, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I think some are missing the point because they’re off into the Obama isn’t the next Hitler instead of focusing on the ground work that can be laid by such a plan. I’m not talking about an armed marched off to the ovens. I’m talking about a national program aimed at youth that influences their political thinking and uses intimidation to shut down descent. Someone ought to see if they can get their hands on the Annenberg challenge curriculum and take a look at the mission.
I fear that some here have little experience with the potential.
In a related note. I understand that the Obama campaign has now developed a database of supporters never before seen and it is the intent to use that vast grassroots database to place pressure on law makers that aren’t willing to support Obama legislation. Seems that the grassroots success that defeated McCain-Kennedy got their attention.
Texas Gal on November 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Ah. Scorn for a picture I neither produced nor hosted, but merely linked, but none for the guy slandering a woman because of her politics.
Good god. Derangement, indeed.
MadisonConservative on November 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
I think I’m going to go buy a copy of Rules For Radicals, just so I can identify the tactics of the Left. I know ridiculing and diminishing your opposition is one, and it works.
Look at Joe McCarthy.
capitalist piglet on November 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
thomasaur on November 11, 2008 at 1:43 PM
As bad as the financial and economic situation is now, it’s just starting now and is going to get much worse. There is a definite danger of total meltdown. People can’t process that even if they could understand economics and finance. They don’t want to think about what happens when a collapse comes. All bets are off then and there are zero structural barriers to political collapse at that point. Our normal Constitutional barriers fall and the President will have supreme authority to maintain order.
econavenger on November 11, 2008 at 1:46 PM
So, in other words, thomasaur, like Gilda, like Esthier, and like everyone who has advocated that position, you cannot answer the question.
Instead, you quote your old post.
Why do you figure you don’t deserve derision when you defend people who can’t even explain their own thinking, and refuse to?
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Nioely put, thomasaur.
But can we still call the “export” who tried to take over this thread and was so rude to everybody a jerk?
Just askin’…
kingsjester on November 11, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Hitler himself may not have been elected, but he was the leader of the Nazi party which won a 44% plurality in the 1933 German parliamentary elections, allowing him enough legislative support to give him dictatorial powers.
DaveO on November 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
What really has happened in the US is that during the last 50 yearr or so, american colleges and universities were infiltrated by marxist professors and know you are seeing the harvest; many spheres of the US have been infiltrated by these communists whose goals is to deliver the country to communism without firing a shot.
tocoloro on November 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
So the argument you’re making is that, if not for the bailout, we would have been at an inflation rate toe rival 1920s Germany? No wonder it passed. Again, so far that money is only serving to prolong the indulgences of those who got us into the mess, at least those who were not the liberal toadies like Frank and Dodd and Schumer.
I’m not sure where you sit, or if you sit on the fringe, but so far the only “conservatives” who have been predicting economic doomsday are the Ronulans, John Birchers, and Alex Jones listeners who are always telling people to buy gold. They have been predicting this since Clinton, year after year, and after 10 or so they finally thought they would be right. Where’s the evidence so far? Slight increase in unemployment after numbers that 15 years ago were considered “prosperous”? The increase of the dollar versus the Euro? At a glance, the stock market is the only meat that would give credence to the argument you’re making. However, by the same token, the price of oil could be a scale model of that. Less than a decade ago, we had the numbers we have now, and we considered that the greatest economy we’ve seen 50 years.
Paulson wanted the cash for his cronies, and he got it. AIG, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, and all of these other outfits screwed up, and should have floundered so that the more level-headed businesses could buy them up and progit as a result. Instead, the government decided to subsidize them exactly as they disastrously do in agriculture.
MadisonConservative on November 11, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Obama wants the current economic turnmoil to continue so that he can implement his socialist/marxist mandate
tocoloro on November 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM
I see fascism and communism as being a car with a two-tone paint scheme. The driver is usually the same character type. The only difference is the phrasing of the sales brochures, the hood ornament and the song on the radio.
I see Obambi as a communist in policy; Hitlerian in marketing / mass appeal. The arrogance of Mussolini. Leninist by exploiting class envy. Stalinist by stuffing ballot boxes. The empty grin of Peanut Carter. The tinpot swagger of Hugo Chavez. The indifference toward family of Cain.
Obabmi appeals to and amplifies the vices of human nature. Not much more to him than that without the media providing the illumination for his shadow box.
viking01 on November 11, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I do, Indy.
We’re not capable of doing to Obama what the left did to Bush. We can’t even come close.
Three reasons:
1) We’re not as vicious as they are. I don’t think every Republican is a saint, and every Democrat a sinner, but most of us truly do have principles, and most of them truly do not. I could not live with myself if I lied about Obama the way the Democrats routinely lied about Bush.
2) We’re not trained at taking down enemies and gaining power. That’s what’s been done to us. It’s not just the flood of trash aimed at the Bush administration, it’s 80 years of neo-Marxist parents sending their kids to become President of CBS, or Chancellor of Univ. of Pennsylvania. They’ve targeted the centers of knowledge, news, communication, and entertainment, they’ve taken them over, and now they’re blocking anybody with divergent views from getting jobs there.
3) We don’t control the news media. They do. That’s how they managed to succeed in trashing President Bush. They can rule so long as they can control the Mindless Many who, in turn, control the outcomes of national elections. If we attempt to slime Obama the way they slimed Bush — and let’s be clear, it was deliberate character assassination by the top levels, they intended to make him a pariah — the media will paint us as devils, and they will succeed. Look at what they did to Ken Starr and Henry Hyde, men who were simply doing their jobs.
I believe that Obama really does want to remove essential liberties, and really does intend to slant the board so Democrats never lose power. Simply making noise will not stop them; they expect noise, and are prepared for it. If the proper channels of dissent get closed, we need to be prepared to use the Jeffersonian Corrective — a little revolution now and then.
I’m completely serious.
philwynk on November 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM
I take it back, thomasaur. After seeing his reply, we can.
Christoph, demeaning and being rude to others on this blogsite will not make you seem intelligent or advance your argument.
Try a new approach. This one is not working…at all.
kingsjester on November 11, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re correct about “only” a Constitutional Convention standing between us and Marxist Dear Leader totalitarianism.
What would that entail? Let’s see… 2/3rds of the state legislatures to call for the Convention, all on the same issue(s). Hasn’t happened since 1787 but yeah it’s theoretically possible.
What would the issue(s) be? Dismantling of the checks and balances between the three branches of government in order to give massively more power to the Executive branch? It would have to be something very similar to that in order to usher in the Hitlerishness.
So let’s say 2/3rds of the States have agreed on as much so far. Then the proposed changes must be ratified by 3/4 of the States, either via a referendum/convention-like vote or a vote in the state legislatures.
Or, Congress could propose such amendments to the Constitution, ensuring their own destruction, and subject to the same ratification requirements in the States.
Seriously – does this scenario strike you as likely? Imminent? Really?
Gilda on November 11, 2008 at 1:54 PM
That’s why I place myself physically in another country and post via a proxy server accessed through an anonymous VPN account. I don’t think I’m too paranoid.
DarkCurrent on November 11, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Ok.
It the spirit of teamwork I’ll calm down. I haven’t called Obama Adolph but then again I haven’t been reserved in my comments about calling a duck a duck. Nor will I. I’ll do my best to follow the mantra of STOP, LISTEN, DECIDE as long as I don’t have to put up with ‘trust-don’t-verify’.
If he steps on 1 to 10 you’ll hear it loud and clear. If he steps off of 1 to 10 I’ll still keep my eye on Uncle Sugar but will give credit where credit is due. I’ll fully admit to being skeptical that any credit will be due.
Limerick on November 11, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Does anyone know of a good third-party campaign worth becoming involved with at the grassroots level?
I am interested in becoming active in something like this as the Republican Party is dead to me.
Goodeye_Closed on November 11, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Correct. Also, they targeted education, law, entertainment, and news. They now control all of them — and they’re blacklisting conservatives from holding jobs in those professions.
Part of this was accomplished from the outside, but a great deal of the work has been done by American leftists who are ignorant of the intended outcome.
Obama is patient. He will not attempt to do what is politically impossible. However, he does intend an American version of the Soviet Union if he can achieve it, and will be pushing as far in that direction as political reality will permit him.
philwynk on November 11, 2008 at 1:58 PM
You make true points and you miss the crucial one.
The main thing that gave Hitler dictatorial powers was charisma to get to that position and the audacity to take it. That is all.
Do you think Napoleon had constitutional authority to become Emperor of France? He took it.
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Not a party, but damn sure should be: NRA
Limerick on November 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Blink, blink, blink
Exactly right and that’s what I think Obama really had in mind, a legacy like JFK’s peace corps but with a national focus. Now who is going to be recruited to over see all these community groups and what would be the basis for the curriculum, goals, guiding principles?
Texas Gal on November 11, 2008 at 2:01 PM
That’s my thinking, except of course, he believes because the right people are in charge it will “work” this time. The same thing Marxists and totalitarians always think, every time.
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 2:02 PM
“ODS?” Odious? That’s about right.
Beo on November 11, 2008 at 2:02 PM
The ONLY long-term way for Conservatism to win out is to gain parity in academia and, even more importantly, the media.
davenp35 on November 11, 2008 at 2:02 PM
It would not require a Constitutional Convention. All it will require is a national voter registration initiative, a general amnesty on illegal immigration, and a citizen corps initiative coupling middle and high school kids with “community action” groups that will indoctrinate them with radical notions. They already have a public school system that teaches the talking points of the Democratic party as fact, and the principles of the Republican party as sin.
They can leave the entire voting process in place, but are assured of votes that will keep them in power indefinitely.
All of the above are in Obama’s platform.
philwynk on November 11, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Carter was incompetent, both with the economy and foreign policy. But he was an honest, peaceful man, who had no ill intentions, and he failed to see the evil in our enemies. Carter never proposed a “civilian national security force”.
Obama is also incompetent, but he is ruthless and malevolent–look at how he destroyed his opposition in the Illinois State Senate primary, and in the election for the U.S. Senate! In proposing a “civilian national security force”, he has tipped his hand–he wants a goon squad to protect himself from anyone who might disagree, and the number of dissenters will probably grow as people become aware of his intentions.
Obviously, a President cannot raise the funds for a civilian army himself–he will need a vote of Congress, and time would be needed to recruit, train, and arm his goon squad, although he could fill the ranks with ACORN volunteers, and pay them later. But could some Democrats in Congress, who have previously been criticized as being weak on national security, vote for this in order to appear “tough” and “patriotic”, then have Obama’s goon squad cancel the elections, suspend the Constitution and give them lifetime seats in Congress? Could enough Republicans be fooled in the Senate to break a filibuster?
Despite the drawbacks of contributing to Obama’s fortune, I suggest that we carefully read Obama’s books. They may be today’s version of “Mein Kampf”.
Steve Z on November 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM
You can say the Congressman’s message was a little over the top but from my perch he was making a point that can’t be completely ignored.
I spent last evening reading the Obama timeline and it reads like a scary novel.
If the authors are even 20% correct in their timeline and assertions then we got one scary-slick dude as head of our Nation.
No, repeat NO experience and one hell of a debt to his Chicago friends.
….and by the way what was the idea of taking a White House tour and turning it political?
I denounce comparisons to Hitler but do not doubt there is a heavy dose of megalomania or narcissism in evidence here.
FireBlogger on November 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
philwynk:
I think by your comment you do agree with me. I think my use of handling was more in terms of ‘tolerating’ but you are saying he will be able to ‘handle’ dissent more effectively as he already has established a hold it on many levels of the media and government. So, Obama will effectively take away more freedoms considering the grip he has on the media, congress, etc.. Good post, I see your point and I agree.
We need to be intelligent when we dissent not immature and deranged like liberals were against Bush. We can be more effective than a liberal can even dream of as long as we stayed based in reality and focus on his actual words and actions, not creating fantasies like the left always does.
Indy928 on November 11, 2008 at 2:08 PM
philwynk and Steve Z, you both get it.
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Regarding the Carter years:
A) I’m not so sure we survived Carter. The CRA that lay under the recent mortgage collapse was Carter-era legislation.
B) Barry Obama is going to cede US sovereignty to the UN on several fronts, and it’s unlikely that we’ll ever get that back. Expect treaties committing us to drug prices set by foreign governments, international carbon caps, international meddling in gender and race quotas, a World Court with jurisdiction over at the very least US military personnel, and I would not be the least bit surprised to see UN troops on American soil, policing our elections.
C) The Carter years ended with the rise of Ronald Reagan, who really was a gift to the nation, forestalling the slide into socialism for 2 decades and aggressively reversing many Carter errors. I don’t foresee anyone of his caliber rising to take the reins out of Obama’s limp hands. Recall that Bush following Clinton did not attempt to reverse Clinton policies the way Reagan reversed Carter policies, or the way Obama intends to reverse Bush policies.
D) The patterns that caused this election swing are not likely to change unless we make inroads into education. The time to make vouchers work was ‘94 through ‘06, but it did not get done.
We need to start selling conservatism to the Hispanics and the blacks. There are natural agreements with social conservatism in both camps. But even with that, I don’t see stopping the slide unless we get control of primary, secondary, and college education. Without them, we’re fighting uphill every election, and at best slowing the slide, never reversing it.
philwynk on November 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM
No. I was just stating that our monetary system did come very close to collapse. Whether the bailout was necessary or not I have no idea – and NO ONE has any idea, since no one knows that actual depth of the problem. In fact, such little is known about the true dimensions of the problem that none of the bailout money was ever used to do what it was passed to do.
I am not arguing for or against the bailout, but just trying to get you to understand how close our monetary system IS to collapsing. And it ain’t over yet. Not even close. The bailout, in my opinion, bought a little time. Nothing else.
We don’t have the transparency, or just the relevant information, to really assess the situation. We don’t know how big the losses really are. I do know that you can’t just print up trillions of dollars and not expect some repercussions of the worst kind.
I do expect that, a BHO administration with a retarded leftist Congress will push further the policies that caused all the mess and will, in the end, bankrupt the nation. I have no doubt about that, at all.
I have never heard of nor read about a US Treasury Secretary ever invoking “Armageddon” to push some policy. That kind of stood out to me. Was Paulson making a bigger deal about it all? It’s possible, but I think that it took a lot more than that to get him to go try and extort trillions in cash out of Congress.
And the collapse of Iceland was very real. Luckily, it is an insignificant nation, in terms of world markets, but that event should give anyone great pause.
In the end, our monetary system works on confidence, and nothing else. We saw that confidence rapidly evaporate (which is what killed Iceland, not anything else) and we must understand what that means going forward. No bank and no banking system can withstand a crisis of confidence – especially if that crisis is well based in accounting facts.
Our monetary system might be very strong and stable, but I have seen no evidence to indicate that and tons of evidence to the contrary. Add to all that the anti-growth/redistributionist policies that will be coming down the pike and it all looks very, very ominous to me.
progressoverpeace on November 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Ed,
But… what if you’re wrong?
lionheart on November 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
ODS is derangement in favor of Obama.
Christien on November 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Right, Indy, we agree.
Not just intelligent, though. Principled. Our response needs to be rooted in intellectually robust, morally sound principles. If we have to raise arms against the government at some point, anything less than a moral stand on pure and correct principle will be a disaster. We want to mimick the American Revolution, not the French Revolution.
“No act of the legislature can make an honorable man a criminal.” Rev. Karl Reed
philwynk on November 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM
GIRD YOUR LOINS!!!
Just trying to lighten things up.
thomasaur on November 11, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Perhaps you’re correct. I was responding to someone who asserted that “only” a Constitutional Convention stood between us and Marxism, and my aim was to point out the difficulty of convening one and obtaining ratification for the necessary amendments.
But still, even in your scenario, there are a lot of variables that must break in the precisely correct ways for it to come true. One thing about the youth: they have a historical tendency to rebel against their elders and nonstop indoctrination might very well have unintended effects.
Gilda on November 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM
“In favor of” resulting in “to the favor of”.
thomasaur on November 11, 2008 at 2:17 PM
What about the fact that AQ, Hamas, and other terrorists Countries endorsed The One? Why didn’t he denounce that? He never did. Also, on Fox a while ago. They said that The One wants to ask Iran if they would join our fight? And why did one of his Advisers say in the Times today. The reason for the meetings with Bush is so that The One can start his RULE? What is with the word RULE? Not comparing this to Nazis, or What ever. This is why I call him The Dictator. He looks and he is acting like A Dictator. Things don’t add up about him at all. We are in the dark. That is what he wants us to be. In the dark.
sheebe on November 11, 2008 at 2:17 PM
You gotta be sh!ttin me.
By the way, what are these seemingly unassailable “enormous structural barriers” you referred to earlier, but never explained?
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Well-said AP. I took the entire idea as a metaphor for something Bush himself said about the entire population being deputized as the eyes and ears of Homeland Security.
sanguine4 on November 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Exactly! Careful, the appeasers will have you branded as having ODS because you dare speak the truth and question Hussein’s motives.
Alden Pyle on November 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Ah, Obama’s first conspiracy theory.
What next? He did 9/11?
This paranoid rep. should keep an eye on the bailout.
The bailout should produce some conspiracy theories.
getalife on November 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Gilda, where the Hell is your evidence, historically, that youth rebel against indoctrination?
Anywhere — college — Hitler Youth — the Marine Corps — Karate — Celebrity worship…
… youth have always been most subject to indoctrination for good or for ill. It’s a function of them knowing sh!t all and not yet having a strong tested personal value system in place.
Christoph on November 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Buffet is not an investment banker. Further, Buffet has spent his career criticizing bad corporate governance like that at AIG. Hell, he’s even from Nebraska, so you populist “real America” types should love him by default. I’d suggest you take the time to learn facts before you let your irrational hatreds and prejudices run wild, but I know from experience that conservatives aren’t any more likely to take reality into account than are leftists.
When Republicans focused their animosity against the poor they ended up supporting decent economic policies, if only by accident. Now that Republicans hate the rich, they do just as much economic damage as and even more ideological damage than the Democrats. If I have to choose between an anti-capitalist demagogue with a D after his name and one with an R, I’ll take the D–at least that way I’ll still be free to use my reproductive organs as I see fit.
hicsuget on November 11, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I don’t care how you spin it. A national civilian defense force the size of the military – meaning millions of people – has fascist tones to it.
angryed on November 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM
With Executive emergency powers and a major national crisis you don’t need a Constitutional Convention for the President to do the things that Lincoln or FDR did, just for instance.
The overall point that is being made is that Obama desperately wants to be a Lincoln or FDR in a major crisis but he in particular will likely be unconstrained when he has that kind of power. He has not shown an ability to be constrained with his growing power so far. His words and actions betray his mind and he has no problem manipulating the masses to personally serve him. Our Constitution only works well when we elect morally constrained, psychologically healthy people.
To be blunt, we as a nation have no real idea who we just elected President. This badly damaged guy with a vague past and clearly Marxist leanings just conned America with sophisticated persuasion techniques into near unilateral control of a massive arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. So we all now just sit here and hope.
Think about that a bit.
Obama has no track record, strictly hides many documents that would expose facts about his life, has an officially approved story of his past penned by a terrorist, has a bunch of AKA names with corresponding nationalities and lies constantly. Yep, he’s the “total package” – as safe as a blank cardboard package you might find abandoned at the door of a mall to take home to the kids. He says to put our hopes in him and watch him change world history. Now…what exactly is he talking about there? And of course, why does he need to formalize his civilian/internet army of followers so fast under official government cover? I know most people are mesmerized by the cold angry preacher vocal stylings and lured by the luscious warm tone of his ebony epidermis, but let’s not be naive people. We would be much better off with a different far left liberal as President. Hillary, Sharpton, Kucinich, Bernie Sanders or Barney Frank are all better than an unstable narcissistic demagogic Chicago thug organizer with a messiah complex.
Those on the left with BDS never would have said, “Bush is a dangerous dictator type, we would be better off with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich or…” You get the picture. They took an unhinged shotgun approach. They hate all conservatives and think we’re all mini-Hitlers. FoxNews and Rush as outposts of conservatism are evil and need to be shut down. That is true anti-intellectual derangement. There’s no comparison to serious Obama dot-connecting, though avoiding the H-word is a good idea to keep people from freaking out and failing to think.
econavenger on November 11, 2008 at 2:25 PM
You’re absolutely right. Buffet didn’t make his millions through professional investment, he made it through selling lemonade on the side of US-51.
But then, you’ve already made up your mind what I am, just some “populist real America type”. Interesting.
MadisonConservative on November 11, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Is everyone being mean to you again, MadisonConservative?
wise_man on November 11, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Yeah, sure, I’ll calm down. Meanwhile, an election is being stolen in MN while we are “calming down”. We reacted calmly when they stole the governorship in Washington 4 years ago too. And main stream media has dropped any & all pretense of being impartial. No sweat. It’s cool.
Security Mom on November 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Sure about that are ya?
Then he needs to stop acting like one.
csdeven on November 11, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I don’t offer any thousands of apologies, redsox nation.
What we have here are two stated intentions from Obama et al:
1. To cut the military by 25%.
2. To institute a civilian security force as well funded as the military.
Seems to me a lot of people are bending over backwards to talk about what that can’t possibly mean. Simply because they can’t believe what it means.
Rather than looking at what is staring them in the face.
Alana on November 11, 2008 at 2:32 PM
All Hail The Big Eared B@stard!
dinkyjackson on November 11, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next »