Are the Hitler Parallels Too Close for Comfort?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jun 18, 2007.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Before you would blow this off as some attack on Bush, consider this point of view. Nothing happens between now and Jan. 09' but then once Hillary or Obama enter the White House and some tramatic event takes place, what would they do with this power at hand?

    Say Katrina happens again and under these new powers the President learns he/she has the power to immediately confiscate assets and properties that could then be used to give directly to the victims in the area. In other words, they lost their car and you have 3 so the logic goes that you "Hummer" is taken and given to the needy.


    In 2000' had I told you an aircraft would be used to bring down the WTC towers I'd bet the same response as the above would get would be given. I'm sure I would have been called everything but a child of God!

    I don't think it's probable such measures would come into play but under the right conditions do we really trust any and all potential candidates who could get elected to the Presidency to not wield this awesome power when the opportunity presents itself?

    And BTW: Where was the democratic controlled Congress on all of this? Not saying a damn thing because they love it too!

    Wake Up America!
  2. Towely

    Towely Member

    Yes, yes it's all VERY far fetched. But whatever makes you guys feel important..keep fighting the man... :tongue_sm

    If anything, instead of taking more power for himself, he's selling our country out to illegal immigrants.

    Im awake. I've been fighting against the left for years now but still haven't succeeded in keeping them from trampling over our constitutional rights. *cough*guncontrol*cough* :wink:
  3. Mr. Hankey

    Mr. Hankey Guest

    Of the 7 Articles (including 21 subsections) and 27 Amendments you are concerned about only one Amendment? If you were concerned about "rights" (plural), both extremes would be in your crosshairs.

    BTW, you do smell sweet and flowery.
  4. Towely

    Towely Member

    I never said that. I am concerned about all of them. I fought hard to try and get the '"Patriot" Act' voted down. I keep up to date on most of the goings on in Congress. I am just particularly active with the 2nd Amendment. It's the only right that allows us to defend out other rights and I feel that of all our rights it is the one that gets trampled on the most(somehow all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual except one...yea, they really interpreted that one well, thank god that got reversed).
  5. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I recognize what you're saying , I see the threat you're highlighting and I'm kind of feeling my way through this one.

    A presidential directive giving himself the power in a time of great crisis not clearly defined.

    It would have to be with the support of the military in order to empower the president to destroy our democracy?

    We would then have to rely on the military to recognize that the order the president is giving them would be unlawfull constitutionally if it in any way destroyed the seperation of powers?

    I wonder if the upper echelons of our military leadership is trained to distinguish between lawfull presidential directives and ones that are unlawful. i would think they are?

    Would the National guard of each state then be the check against the president being able to assume total power?

    Perhaps the designers of our system gave the states greater autonomy recognizing this potential threat?

    I'm not sure it would be as easy as it was in post depression germany to pull this off.

    But I agree we should be wary of any laws or directives which might tip the scales.
  6. area43

    area43 New Member

    Wkmac, I agree, Look after 9/11 of all the freedoms we have forfieted. Yes, they are for our safety, but I believe it is a way for democrats to sieze more power. To say if another katrina hits and we would have to fork over our stuff is not to far fetched. Just think of how much money we work forking over to the feds, state,city,etc, etc in tax,s. Is it ever enough. Not to get off subject. I believe after the dems get done taking our hard earned money, they will go after our freedoms next. Hold tight folks! I hear that giant sucking sound. LOL.
  7. Towely

    Towely Member

    It's still very out there. After the patriot act and those chirades that got pulled in New Orleans(stealing guns from law abiding citizens) most people are wary as ever when it comes to losing freedoms. I just don't see that happeneing anytime soon. The American people surely wouldn't fall for it. At worst their would be assasinations and widespread acts of rebellion if the .gov ever tried to grab that much power.
  8. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    I don't disagree that it's way out there but if you consider where we are today and go back 3 or so decades, do you think we might have tolerated many of things today that we do from our gov't? How about 5 decades? Even looking at something as benign as Social Security, FDR himself made comments that would suggest that even he thought that SS would be a temp. measure and where are we today. Look at the NRA (not the gun group but FDR's National Recovery Act) and how it came about, what it did and who was involved and how it changed us all under the banner of saving us from crisis.

    We keep inching closer and closer to the edge so when is it to close?
  9. SeniorGeek

    SeniorGeek Below the Line

    I previously found another article about this same issue... which points to an article at (I especially like the photograph. A caption idea: "Ask not what you can do for Government, ask what the Government will do to you.")

    How far "out there"? What were the repercussions for confiscating guns in New Orleans - who got fined, jailed, etc. for violating rights? It sounds like a test run for the next time. You don't see it happening anytime soon - but hasn't it already happened a little bit? You think that the American people wouldn't fall for it - haven't we already allowed the camel's nose into the tent?

    A dictatorship doesn't have to start with a blatant coup. (Many dictatorships hold elections, and others say that dictatorship is only a temporary expedient. Even Idi Amin promised a return to democracy once things stabilized....)

    The 2nd Amendment no longer serves its original purpose - but today, the American people would not allow it to. It was intended to allow the populace to be as well-equipped as a regular army, so no military could be used against the people.

    The word "edge" makes it sound as if there is a point that would be defined and obvious - but that point is different for each of us.

    We may already be the simmering frog. Any uprising would be squelched, the story framed as a bunch of militant crazies - a new reason to increase security...and who isn't willing to trade off a bit more of their freedom in exchange for that security? People could become reluctant to speak out against repression, especially if it might be seen as treason - punishable by death.
  10. Towely

    Towely Member

    We are already far too close. The federal government has WAY too much power. I just don't see a Hitler like power ever taking control in America. The military wouldn't follow orders. The people would rebel. The country would basically fall apart from within(must like most empires do).

    Im not saying it's impossible and yes we are definetly going down that path
    but its very slow. The people won't openly support government takeover. They are just too blind to see these programs(like social security) for what they really are. A government powergrab. It's not that they are welcoming socialism with open arms. They are just dumb and lazy.
  11. Towely

    Towely Member

    I agree that the gun confiscation in New Orleans was a huge violation of their rights. Then again all gun control is. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a 'test.' Thats a bit out there for me. Though if they ever do want to pull a stunt like that again at least now they know that they can do it without any serious repercussions.
  12. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    That is the very reason why I think it's possible for this scenario to take place at some point. Also when the name of Hitler is invoked, it's natural to think mostly of the millions, specifically jews, who were killed by this madman. I'm not sure this type of scenario would come into play but who knows how people will react in crisis.

    One of our downfalls IMO is that we have such a diverse culture who's loyalities are literally all over the map. We as a culture to some degree have no root common ground or bond that we all can rally around that makes us strong and keeps us strong. As many variables involved in the downfall of Rome, they had conquered so many which caused them to absord so much in the way of diversity that when the empire became truly threatened, people's cultural loyalities lay elsewhere and the attempt to rally the people behind Roman patriotism and Roman glory was met with almost silence across the realm. Why should we scarifice ourselves for the benefit of Rome itself?

    In another perspective, why should a town in East Wherever USA scarifice itself for Washington DC? Why does town or State "A" get choosen and benefit over town or State "B" when federal taxdollars are earmarked for income redistribution? Yeah folks, your gov't is fully engaged in one of Karl Marx's key points of centralization and collective creation. We are Borg! Resistance if futile!
    Why should town or State "B" have it's tax dollars from the local folks hardwork be taken and used to the benefit town of State "A"? More votes for the party in power if you look at the demographics of the earmark spending patterns.

    However, there is irony in that our diversity is also our saving grace in this Hitler potential scenario as well because it would make it very hard for a Hitler like figure to emerge as a unifying force. In a very real sense, no one would have an upperhand but you just never can tell how people will react when in crisis just as I'm sure if Germany could have seen the outcome in 1945', it would have far outweighed the thoughts at the time on the ills of the Treaty of Versailles and a different election outcome in 1933' may have taken place in Germany.

    History is loaded with example after example of very good, descent and otherwise everyday folk voting, backing, supporting a leadership figure that takes the blame of society's ills and places it somewhere else to make the masses feel better about themselves and in turn the mentality of this wonderous leader is to powerful to resist power and the rest is history as they say.

    I find the current immigration debate of interest in that if some wellspoken, charismatic figure could emerge and unite both African American and Whites in this country behind that cause then with so much damage to the limiting factor and protections of the Constitution having been eroded, there's no telling what could spring to life that we never thought possible. When the Berlin wall was built and existed, if you suggested a wall also be built on the American border the masses would have thought and openly labeled you a Stalinist, Atheistic communist but today you are evoked in many circles that had been staunchly anti-communist as some kind of modern day hero for for championing that very cause.

    And don't discount this growing black/white unification either because there is a growing concern among African Americans about the illegal immigration issue to the point that African American gangs are starting to hotline police about Hispanic gang activities leading to arrests. It's a growing trend and who'd have ever thunk it!

    But let's hope at the end of the day we've learned from history but sadly learning from history we also have a bad habit of repeating it! Example? Let's build our own Berlin Wall!

    So much for my attempt at closing on an optimistic note!


    It's a breathe of fresh air to see someone like yourself express concerns over the growing power and scope of gov't. Big thanks to you on that!