View Full Version : Obama Takes a Page From Hitler's Mein Kampf
Team Sergeant
01-17-2013, 10:02
Obama Takes a Page From Hitler's Mein Kampf:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
--- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf
To obama and all other socialists:
MOLON LABE
Ret10Echo
01-17-2013, 10:05
Parallels....
Images off of Drudge
Y'all - it's a "manufactured" quote that surfaced in 2004 as a part of a fictional letter.
What Hitler wrote:
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people.”
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2008/12/08/having-fun-falsifying-history/
What was in the 2004 fictional letter written by Rabbi Daniel Lapin and posted on WND:
Finally, dear Julius, you will remember what I frequently said and wrote in “Mein Kampf”: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the peoplevii.” I said that as long as we explain how the government is working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. It is truly heartwarming to see how well this lesson has been learned by some Americans. In the name of “the children,” incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that we Nazis would have gazed at with open-mouthed admiration.
http://www.wnd.com/2004/01/22711/#Ohy0lmRfW8JZOxTL.99
One thing about the Internet -
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Stargazer
01-17-2013, 10:39
Why all the drama and surrounding yourself with children. Shouldn't the merit of his decisions / executive actions stand on their own.
Irrespective of who or how sensationalism may have been used in the history of man, this President is all about it. He owns how he is perceived and judged. I find nothing honorable in his character or leadership. He is superficial and self-serving.
”Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.” ~ character, Butch Cassidy :)
Streck-Fu
01-17-2013, 10:58
Why all the drama and surrounding yourself with children. Shouldn't the merit of his decisions / executive actions stand on their own.
Exactly my thoughts on this. Rather than putting letters from 8 year old children to justify your policy decisions, directly and concisely give us your best case.
F'n theater is what we get.
I have indisputable video evidence that proves the true political connection...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
I wonder how many children he'll surround himself with when he signs another pro abortion bill?????
Here's another one. He wants background checks on everybody trying to acquire a weapon, and he's spent millions keeping his background sealed....
He has "the codes", the planets mightiest weapons, and we can't do a background check on him....??
ZonieDiver
01-17-2013, 12:47
Irrespective of who or how sensationalism may have been used in the history of man,...
Does this mean that you think that the "other side" making up shit is baaad, but if there is something made-up that suits your agenda it's fine and dandy?
...this President is all about it. He owns how he is perceived and judged. I find nothing honorable in his character or leadership. He is superficial and self-serving.
"Yeah? Well, that's, like, your opinion, man!" character, The Big Lebowski
Stargazer
01-17-2013, 12:56
Does this mean that you think that the "other side" making up shit is baaad, but if there is something made-up that suits your agenda it's fine and dandy?
No sir.
"Yeah? Well, that's, like, your opinion, man!" character, The Big Lebowski
Soley expressed as my opinion based on my perceptions. Although I know I am not alone in the sentiment.
ZonieDiver
01-17-2013, 13:01
Ya know... we have major constitutional and legal issues in which WE are 'in the right' and can pursue with valid, cogent, reasoned arguments.
Focusing on trivial matters such as surrounding oneself with children (soldiers, elderly, infirm, farmers, whatever) for propaganda purposes deflects from the arguments we should be making, and falls into THEIR narrative of US!
It's the way political battles are lost. (It's the way elections are, and recently WERE, lost, as well.) MOO
Added: To me, this is much like the Liberal/Anti-War crowds' focus on President GW Bush's landing on the carrier in a flight suit with the banner visible. Remember that snit? We pointed out how wrong they were. And they were. How is this different from that? Just sayin'...
Stargazer
01-17-2013, 13:09
Ya know... we have major constitutional and legal issues in which WE are 'in the right' and can pursue with valid, cogent, reasoned arguments.
Focusing on trivial matters such as surrounding oneself with children (soldiers, elderly, infirm, farmers, whatever) for propaganda purposes deflects from the arguments we should be making, and falls into THEIR narrative of US!
It's the way political battles are lost. (It's the way elections are, and recently WERE, lost, as well.) MOO
Added: To me, this is much like the Liberal/Anti-War crowds' focus on President GW Bush's landing on the carrier in a flight suit with the banner visible. Remember that snit? We pointed out how wrong they were. And they were. How is this different from that? Just sayin'...
I agree with you. My remarks regarding my perceptions were not limited to this instance, merely reinforced.
The highlighted portion in blue is so true, but I respectively submit, it's also the way they are won.
I agree with ZD's points, and to go along with his stated need for the 'right' to focus on the issues w/o the endlessly distracting and derailing hyperbole, here's an example of how the "left" views it.
Richard :munchin
Republicans Accuse Obama of Using Position as President to Lead Country
NewYorker, 15 Jan 2014
Responding to reports that President Obama is considering signing as many as nineteen executive orders on gun control, Republicans in Congress unleashed a blistering attack on him today, accusing Mr. Obama of “cynically and systematically using his position as President to lead the country.”
Spearheading the offensive was Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), who charged the President with the “wanton exploitation of powers that are legally granted to him under the U.S. Constitution.”
Calling him the “Law Professor-in-Chief,” Rep. Stockman accused Mr. Obama of “manipulating a little-known section of the Constitution,” Article II, which outlines the power of the President.
“President Obama looks down the list of all of the powers that are legally his and he’s like a kid in a candy store,” Rep. Stockman said. “It’s nauseating.”
The Texas congressman said that if Mr. Obama persists in executing the office of the Presidency as defined by the Constitution, he could face “impeachment and/or deportation.”
Noting that the President has not yet signed the executive orders on gun control, Rep. Stockman said that he hoped his stern words would serve as a wake-up call to Mr. Obama: “Mr. President, there’s still time for you to get in line. But if you continue to fulfill the duties of President of the United States that are expressly permitted in the Constitution, you are playing with fire.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/01/republicans-accuse-obama-of-using-position-as-president-to-lead-country.html#ixzz2IGHADj6k
Although I know I am not alone in the sentiment.
You are far from alone - there are perhaps millions that see what you see, experience and perceive what you perceive - and share so eloquently.
Expressing your personal, well written observations may or may not loose another election - but I appreciate them. I submit that there may be a few others.
The frustration level with this administration is growing - and you are not alone.
ZonieDiver
01-17-2013, 13:29
You are far from alone - there are perhaps millions that see what you see, experience and perceive what you perceive - and share so eloquently.
Expressing your personal, well written observations may or may not loose another election - but I appreciate them. I submit that there may be a few others.
The frustration level with this administration is growing - and you are not alone.
It's going to be very tough for the next 4 years (+ a few days) then, huh?:boohoo
While millions agree, millions more disagree. IF WE keep this kind of 'discourse' up, our millions will continue to shrink, and their millions will continue to grow (or the 'fence sitters' will... and as my mom used to say, "same difference".):(
Add: I should have said very tough for the next TWO years, and then UNBEARABLE after that! IF WE keep this up, we WILL lose the Senate in the 2014 elections. Picture that? (I know... some will say, "That's not going to happen, WE will take the Senate then!" Right! I'm still waiting for that "Romney Landslide"... are they still counting votes, or something?:D)
It's going to be very tough for the next 4 years (+ a few days) then, huh?:boohoo
The next 4 years, hell, the last few weeks have been tough. And it ain't getting better.
I suppose that we all call it the way we see it...
Why all the drama and surrounding yourself with children. Shouldn't the merit of his decisions / executive actions stand on their own.
Irrespective of who or how sensationalism may have been used in the history of man, this President is all about it. He owns how he is perceived and judged. I find nothing honorable in his character or leadership. He is superficial and self-serving.
”Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.” ~ character, Butch Cassidy :)And where was Bush the Younger on 9/11? Bush the Younger posed with whom on 8 January 2002 when he signed into law H.R. 1 <<LINK (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-1.html)>>? With whom did Bush the Younger surround himself when he signed H.R. 1530 into law on 3 December 2004 <<LINK2 (http://archives.republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/press/press108/second/12dec/idea120304.htm)>>? Or how about H.R. 1553 on 29 July 2008 <<LINK3> (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/07/images/20080729_d-0229-3-515h.html)>> ?
(Who landed a jet on the deck of a CVN in advance of a political speech on 1 May 2003?)
Oh, yeah. But that was different.
Stargazer
01-17-2013, 15:57
And where was Bush the Younger on 9/11? Bush the Younger posed with whom on 8 January 2002 when he signed into law H.R. 1 <<LINK (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-1.html)>>? With whom did Bush the Younger surround himself when he signed H.R. 1530 into law on 3 December 2004 <<LINK2 (http://archives.republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/press/press108/second/12dec/idea120304.htm)>>? Or how about H.R. 1553 on 29 July 2008 <<LINK3> (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/07/images/20080729_d-0229-3-515h.html)>> ?
(Who landed a jet on the deck of a CVN in advance of a political speech on 1 May 2003?)
Oh, yeah. But that was different.
I did not share my view of anyone beyond the current President.
Irrespective of who or how sensationalism may have been used in the history of man, this President is all about it. He owns how he is perceived and judged. I find nothing honorable in his character or leadership. He is superficial and self-serving.
TXGringo
01-17-2013, 16:06
And where was Bush the Younger on 9/11? Bush the Younger posed with whom on 8 January 2002 when he signed into law H.R. 1 <<LINK (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020108-1.html)>>? With whom did Bush the Younger surround himself when he signed H.R. 1530 into law on 3 December 2004 <<LINK2 (http://archives.republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/press/press108/second/12dec/idea120304.htm)>>? Or how about H.R. 1553 on 29 July 2008 <<LINK3> (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/07/images/20080729_d-0229-3-515h.html)>> ?
(Who landed a jet on the deck of a CVN in advance of a political speech on 1 May 2003?)
Oh, yeah. But that was different.
No Child Left Behind, Special Education Reform Bill, and the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.
These are comparable to gun legislation/executive orders, with regards to using children in photo ops?
No Child Left Behind, Special Education Reform Bill, and the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.
These are comparable to gun legislation/executive orders, with regards to using children in photo ops?
I am actually in agreement with Sigaba on this, in that both the Left and Right are equally guilty of using young people as props...children shouldn't be trotted out for Presidential happy snaps...period, regardless of the legislation/executive order/occasion...
Stargazer
01-17-2013, 16:25
Sigaba's snarky "Henry Clay" reference and response was to my comment on this thread. I never stated that such tactics have not be used... matter of fact, I alluded to the opposite...
Irrespective of who or how sensationalism may have been used in the history of man
I did not share my view of anyone beyond the current President.Contexts matter, otherwise political discourse will continue to degenerate into strings of one word sentences.
Worst. President. Ever.
Best. President. Ever.
IMO, the "big picture" includes not only the renewed debates over the Second Amendment, but also the political viability of the Republican Party, and the intellectual sustainability of right of center political thought. The president is backing his opponents into a corner (again) in the hope that they will take a seat upon a stool with two of those three legs weakened.
Ahistoric comparisons, uncontextualized venting, and politically unsustainable counter-proposals all work to the president's benefit.No Child Left Behind, Special Education Reform Bill, and the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.
These are comparable to gun legislation/executive orders, with regards to using children in photo ops?Yes, to the extent that a POTUS is phrasing the activities of the federal state within a patriarchal context. Just as Bush the Younger sought to communicate that he cared about America's children to justify his policies, so does the current president. Patriarchy justifies expanding the reach of the federal government into the everyday lives of American citizens.
I know I sound like Gabby Hayes, but-Obama's on a high horse, and he's steppin' right smart, but the 2A is a deep gopher hole.
(Goes back to whittlin' and spittin' Cope.)
TXGringo
01-17-2013, 18:15
Yes, to the extent that a POTUS is phrasing the activities of the federal state within a patriarchal context. Just as Bush the Younger sought to communicate that he cared about America's children to justify his policies, so does the current president. Patriarchy justifies expanding the reach of the federal government into the everyday lives of American citizens.
Bush the Younger could say that the policies you cited pertained directly to our children and their well-being. IMO, the current President saying the same of his proposed gun policies is quite a stretch, to say the least.
Bush the Younger could say that the policies you cited pertained directly to our children and their well-being. IMO, the current President saying the same of his proposed gun policies is quite a stretch, to say the least.Did you watch or read the president's speech yesterday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/remarks-president-and-vice-president-gun-violence) or the one he gave on 16 December 2012 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/16/remarks-president-sandy-hook-interfaith-prayer-vigil)?
For better and for worse, sitting presidents have the knack for framing how their policy initiatives will be debated.
Back to Team Sergeant point...
TXGringo
01-18-2013, 00:31
Did you watch or read the president's speech yesterday (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/remarks-president-and-vice-president-gun-violence) or the one he gave on 16 December 2012 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/16/remarks-president-sandy-hook-interfaith-prayer-vigil)?
For better and for worse, sitting presidents have the knack for framing how their policy initiatives will be debated.
I don't argue that fact.
I didn't say that the current President couldn't/hasn't claimed his policies will benefit the children. I believe him doing so is, at the very least, quite a stretch.
I think most people see it for what it is. Around here, at least...
Entire post.Okay. <<LINK (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)>>
:munchin
TXGringo
01-18-2013, 08:44
I don't argue that fact.
I didn't say that the current President couldn't/hasn't claimed his policies will benefit the children. I believe him doing so is, at the very least, quite a stretch.
I think most people see it for what it is. Around here, at least...
Okay. <<LINK (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)>>
:munchin
From your link:
"In his weekly newspaper column, Scott Rasmussen looks at how our nation is searching for answers after the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The president’s desire for much stricter gun ownership laws is “not likely to happen in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard.” He suggests that if Congress is not “willing to go as far as the president wants on gun control, perhaps they should go further in some other areas. They might take stronger action on mental health issues or increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun.”
Maybe it's not just around here. :munchin
ZonieDiver
01-18-2013, 09:59
From your link:
"In his weekly newspaper column, Scott Rasmussen looks at how our nation is searching for answers after the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. The president’s desire for much stricter gun ownership laws is “not likely to happen in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard.” He suggests that if Congress is not “willing to go as far as the president wants on gun control, perhaps they should go further in some other areas. They might take stronger action on mental health issues or increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun.”
Maybe it's not just around here. :munchin
Maybe that "6 out of 10" differentiate between owning a "gun" and a "nasty, black, pistolgripped Assault Rifle with one of those death causing "high capacity clips".
I see no reason why the "55%" mentioned in Sigaba's post and your "6 out of 10" contradict each other. Both are possible.
By the way... 53 days, isn't it? How's that PT coming along? I haven't seen an update in the SF Candidate PT thread in a while. No, wait... "ever", not "in a while".
Dozer523
01-18-2013, 10:13
By the way... 53 days, isn't it? How's that PT coming along? I haven't seen an update in the SF Candidate PT thread in a while. No, wait... "ever", not "in a while".Post #163. He's smokin' the ONE Mile run.I think most people see it for what it is. Around here, at least...
Spare us the pandering . . . Candidate.
Go do PT.
TXGringo
01-18-2013, 10:27
I see no reason why the "55%" mentioned in Sigaba's post and your "6 out of 10" contradict each other. Both are possible.
I never said they contradict each other. Sigaba presented that link as a counterpoint to "I think most people see it for what it is."
I was speaking in terms of Obama's proposed gun policies, "6 out of 10," not his overall job approval.
I was talking with my neighbor about this a couple of days ago while we were standing around talking about a fence we needed to repair and eating a few prickly pears off the cacti along the fence.
He usually has a group of friends/acquaintances over on Friday/Saturday evenings for a grillfest. Many of his friends deal only in cash (non-drug related) and often have quite a bit of money on them, especially on Fridays. Word got around to the wrong crowd of his gatherings and the potential for there being quite a bit of $$ there, and 3 local thugs decided to show up and rob them last May. One of the thugs had a 9mm pistol, seemed to be high and extremely nervous as he waved his pistol around and threatened everyone while demanding they give him their money. My neighbor merely asked the guy what he was doing and the thug shot him twice - once in the left shoulder and once in the right side between his hip and ribcage. The others started moving around and the thug began shooting at them, wounding one in the ear. He quit firing when his magazine was empty and, as he went to reload, the group jumped all three of the thugs, beating and kicking them. One had his clothes torn off and fled down the road into the nearest housing area, one was severely beaten and unconscious, and the gunman was literally beaten to death. His wife called 911 and they took my neighbor to the hospital. When the sheriff's deputies arrived, all my neighbor's guests were gone and he told them he didn't know who they were or where they'd gone, but a description of the thug who ran off was given to them and they caught him hiding naked in a nearby homeowner's yard.
I asked him if he had any weapons now and he told me, "No." He says he doesn't need them because he has good friends and everybody around here knows it.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
01-18-2013, 10:40
I was talking with my neighbor about this a couple of days ago while we were standing around talking about a fence we needed to repair and eating a few prickly pears off the cacti along the fence.
He usually has a group of friends/acquaintances over on Friday/Saturday evenings for a grillfest. Many of his friends deal only in cash (non-drug related) and often have quite a bit of money on them, especially on Fridays. Word got around to the wrong crowd of his gatherings and the potential for there being quite a bit of $$ there, and 3 local thugs decided to show up and rob them last May. One of the thugs had a 9mm pistol, seemed to be high and extremely nervous as he waved his pistol around and threatened everyone while demanding they give him their money. My neighbor merely asked the guy what he was doing and the thug shot him twice - once in the left shoulder and once in the right side between his hip and ribcage. The others started moving around and the thug began shooting at them, wounding one in the ear. He quit firing when his magazine was empty and, as he went to reload, the group jumped all three of the thugs, beating and kicking them. One had his clothes torn off and fled down the road into the nearest housing area, one was severely beaten and unconscious, and the gunman was literally beaten to death. His wife called 911 and they took my neighbor to the hospital. When the sheriff's deputies arrived, all my neighbor's guests were gone and he told them he didn't know who they were or where they'd gone, but a description of the thug who ran off was given to them and they caught him hiding naked in a nearby homeowner's yard.
I asked him if he had any weapons now and he told me, "No." He says he doesn't need them because he has good friends and everybody around here knows it.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Remember it's for the children.
My neighbor merely asked the guy what he was doing and the thug shot him twice - once in the left shoulder and once in the right side between his hip and ribcage. The others started moving around and the thug began shooting at them, wounding one in the ear.
Richard :munchin
I count two wounded. I doubt that the thugs would have even attempted such a thing in our neighborhood.
Pat
OldNCranky
01-18-2013, 12:13
Bill Whittle from PJTV has some pretty good thoughts on this "Kabuki Theatre" and "The Rule of Lawlessness"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeGGs6642O8
Stargazer
01-18-2013, 12:14
Contexts matter, otherwise political discourse will continue to degenerate into strings of one word sentences.
Worst. President. Ever.
Best. President. Ever.
IMO, the "big picture" includes not only the renewed debates over the Second Amendment, but also the political viability of the Republican Party, and the intellectual sustainability of right of center political thought. The president is backing his opponents into a corner (again) in the hope that they will take a seat upon a stool with two of those three legs weakened.
Ahistoric comparisons, uncontextualized venting, and politically unsustainable counter-proposals all work to the president's benefit.
You are correct that context matters.
The opinion I expressed in post #4, was in response to the thread and post by the Team Sergeant pertaining to the Executive Orders and political posturing the current President took to limit (IMO infringe upon) the liberties Americans have under the 2nd Amendment. In post #10, I responded to another member questions that reinforced (as my original comment stated) that the use of children to sensationalize actions, regardless of political party, is equally wrong in my view. Further, my lack of respect for the current President is strictly my opinion.
How does your post #17 that was directed to me, elevate the discussion to the levels you continual suggest on this BB are crucial to moving beyond political discourse by engaging those with opposing views?
Although my intent and comments were not comparing this President to others, I want to respond to the links you posted and why I see the undertones to be different. In the case of President G.W. Bush, he was signing non-partisan legislation that would directly impact programs and resources for children in the areas of education and the prevention/treatment of pediatric cancer. In comparison, President Obama was signing partisan (IMV unconstitutional) Executive Orders that would directly impact law abiding individuals who have guns or will want to purchase guns for personal reasons. Perhaps he should have had NRA members, hunters, and women who carry for protection standing by his side. In my view, President Bush did not use children to sensationalize a situation whereby President Obama did.
In my view, President Bush did not use children to sensationalize a situation whereby President Obama did.
I disagree and adhere to the POV that they, along with many others, both did.
And for those who fear that weapons confiscation or control is a looming issue, well...it isn't the first time in our nation's often tumultuous history and there are some things we should be aware of when considering joining the, "Give me that ol' tyme militia...give me that ol' tyme millitia...give me that ol' tyme militia...it's good enough for me!" bandwagon.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Dohhunter
01-18-2013, 15:59
.
Stiletto11
01-18-2013, 19:04
So if I understand the banter, both parties deploy propaganda; but what is the intent?
I disagree and adhere to the POV that they, along with many others, both did.
And for those who fear that weapons confiscation or control is a looming issue, well...it isn't the first time in our nation's often tumultuous history and there are some things we should be aware of when considering joining the, "Give me that ol' tyme militia...give me that ol' tyme millitia...give me that ol' tyme militia...it's good enough for me!" bandwagon.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
C'mon, Richard. A simple google search shows how liberal Thomas Hartmann is. Doesn't make what he says true.
C'mon, Richard. A simple google search shows how liberal Thomas Hartmann is. Doesn't make what he says true.When the Constitution gives power to Congress To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; What types of "insurrections" did the framers have in mind? Were they solely concerned with the likes of Daniel Shays?
Or were some framers aware that approximately twenty percent of the population were slaves and that they (along with others) might notice a disconnect between the political philosophy and the political economy of the young republic?
Just a 235 year update...
Granted, some of his personal observations/conclusions are his own, but the history is the history...and it behooves ( a word my drill sergeant loved) us to remember that such matters were neither simple, uncompromising, nor just about monarchical rule, invading armies, and the like.
Richard :munchin