Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America VS Obama
Word Press ^ | 5 June 2008 | Fredshelm

Posted on 08/25/2009 7:32:13 PM PDT by Candor7

Barack the Black Hitler

(How Obama’s stated goals may lead to the deaths of roughly six million people and the striking similarities between Obama’s personality and methods for acquiring power and Hitler’s.)

For most people, Hitler embodies pure evil. Because of this, his name is often invoked in debates over character. These sorts of comparisons are almost always unwarranted and wildly exaggerated. But now America has a new star politician, Obama, and the parallels between he and the most loathed man in history are very real. In this article, we will examine the methods of assuming power employed by both men, and the role of their decisions in the lives (and deaths) of six millions jews.

The substance behind words:

We can tell a lot about what a politician thinks of his audience based on his approach to speaking to them. A politician that believes his audience is mature and intelligent will appeal to their logic rather than emotion. He will tell them the unpleasant truth because he believes his audience can handle it. A politician that does not think very highly of his audience will do the opposite. He will remain as vague as possible and appeal to their emotions above all else.

“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” — Adolf Hitler

It is not hard to deduce Obama’s opinions of his audience. When he’s in public he uses vague terms such as “hope” and “change” rather than attempt to define exactly what it is he intends to do. He appeals to the authority of examples in history in order to imbue their qualities into his words rather than extoll the virtues of any specific policy he proposes. Let’s not forget his creative “borrowing” of other people’s words either. (see: Deval Patrick) In essence, he aims to inspire, not inform.

“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.” — Adolf Hitler

Behind closed doors, however, Obama shows another side to him as he attempts social psychoanalysis on the people whose votes he seeks:

“[People in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” — Obama, at a San Francisco fundraiser. (Behind closed doors)

Insults and condescension aside, what is wrong with this picture? Why doesn’t Obama share his amatuer psychoanalyst-side with the rest of the people? Surely a great orator as Obama can do it without insulting them, right? It would be impressive for Obama to tell the American people exactly what they’re thinking (as he seems to think himself capable of doing), but it appears he doesn’t seem to think highly enough of voters to tell them what he thinks, only what he wants them to feel.

Tactics for seizing control:

“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.” — Adolf Hitler

Its no big secret that Obama bases most of his appeal with youth voters. This is a common occurrence in the history of the rise of tyrants. Most are supported fervently by the young. Hitler famously used this technique to gain power. The tyrant-to-be must hide his true ambitions behind a mask of emotional appeal in order to seduce the gullible and unwary. The youth most often falls into this category, not yet “broken in” to the number one rule in electing a ruler: watch their actions, not their lips.

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.” — Adolf Hitler

In the year 2000, a fierce primary raged in the Republican party. Two candidates, John McCain and George W. Bush polarized the party. Some sleazy personal attacks against McCain appeared at a crucial moment. In the end, Bush won, but not without sowing the seeds of animosity. McCain believed he had been the victim of some dirty tricks and attributed the attacks to the Bush campaign. Bush denied it. The vitriol was so bad that many expected McCain to leave the party. By most accounts, including the Democrats that met with him to discuss such matters, he almost did. Nevertheless, to the surprise of many wide-eyed pundits, McCain strolled into the convention in support of Bush. Chalk it up to character or political posturing for another run. Despite this, the rivalry did not subside. The two men represented opposite ends of the Republican party.

In the years to follow, McCain became a vocal critic of the management of the Iraq war. When the blueprints for the Surge rolled out, he was one of the first to embrace it while rejecting the Bush doctrine. He has also been critical of the wasteful spending which the administration allowed and even its tax cuts. He earned the scorn of a lot of Republican leaders for this, as well as his “maverick” handle from the media, seeing him as a thorn in the administration’s side. Despite their many differences and long history of rivalry, Obama attempts to caricature McCain as essentially a Bush-clone in many of his speeches.

“No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush term…” — Barack Obama

Returning to the subject of Obama’s views of voters, what do you think this tells us about Obama? Surely the people must know Bush’s policies, they’ve been the law of the land for nearly eight years. Surely, any voter interested in the issues would study the policies of the candidates carefully. If one candidate’s policies were identical to the current administration’s, wouldn’t it be readily obvious even to the most untrained eye? Why would the average voter need Obama to tell them that Bush and McCain are the same person if its obvious? Only if they wouldn’t get that impression from looking at the record, only if it weren’t true.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” — Adolf Hitler

(For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that a version of this quote first originated with Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister. In this particular quote, Hitler was paraphrasing him.)

“Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be “discovered” by an election.” — Adolf Hitler

January 2nd, 1996, Obama began his under-handed crusade for the senate. With a crack team of lawyers, he challenged hundreds of vote petitions and managed to eliminate all of his fellow Democrats from the ballot. One fellow candidate was Alice Palmer. Up to that point, she had been grooming Obama to succeed her once she retired. Not willing to wait, Obama took matters into his own hands and denied her the right to run for her own seat. Alice Palmer is the same woman who essentially launched his political career. Apparently, Obama didn’t trust the voters to “discover” a great man in that election, so he chose for them.

The genes of tyranny:

Obama and Hitler both have displayed a penchant for eliminating “undesirable” infants. Hitler’s case is well known; he believed he could create a master race through selective breeding, mandatory sterilization of “undesirable parents” and abortions. Obama’s methods lack the scope of ambition but the end result is similar – Obama has legalized the murder of already-born infants.

In 2002, an important bill known as the “Induced Infant Liability Act” cropped up in the Illinois senate. The purpose of the bill was to protect infants who had been born alive after a failed abortion from being “aborted” after birth. In the United States, the second a person is born, they become a U.S. citizen. Taking the life of such a citizen is murder. That is something both pro-choice and pro-life advocates can agree on. Even the most pro-abortion lobby in the country, NARAL, did not oppose it nor the federal version of the law.

Obama on the other hand, did oppose it, TWICE. In doing so, he helped establish the legality of murder of infant Americans in his state.

Both Obama and Hitler are of mixed racial heritage, and distort this heritage to control public opinion. Hitler hated jews and made a career of it, so he hid the fact that jewish blood ran through his veins. Obama has made a career out of embracing his “blackness” and African American heritage. His first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”, was based entirely on that premise. There’s just one problem: Obama isn’t an African American, Obama is an Arab American.

Obama is 50% caucasian, 43.75% arab, and 6.25% black. According to federal law, an American citizen must be at least 1/8th, or 12.5% of a particular race to be considered a member of that race. Obama meets that criteria easily to be considered an Arab American but not African American.

(The astute reader will have noticed that being that Obama is not truly African American, the title of this article is inaccurate. I have decided upon that title rather than an alternative due to the public’s general familiarity with Obama as an “African American”.)

Dead-end philosophy:

Pop Quiz: Which of these quotes was said by Hitler and which was said by Obama?

A. “…our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.”

B. “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”

If these two statements seem similiar, it’s because they both derive from the same philosophy: socialism. NAZI stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. The socialists of Hitler’s era aren’t much different from those of today in terms of ideology, though most socialists of the modern era are called “latte liberals”. Indeed, Hitler would’ve fit right in with such a group. He was a vegetarian, pro-abortion, an advocate for strict gun control, desirous of universal health care, and continually extolling the virtues of state control.

Someone once asked me how Obama could become a socialist. I replied by asking how he could not. Obama has been surrounded by marxists his entire life. I’m not sure that he has contacted non-marxist/socialist ideas within his close circle of friends even once.

His father was a communist. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. Obama explicitly admits to seeking out marxist professors in his autobiographical work and attending socialist meetings. His close friends, like Bill Ayers the former terrorist, leadership at Trinity, all hold distinctly socialist/marxist views. Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the entire senate for 2007. He was even more radical than senators who were openly socialist.

( More at site, video, and comments)

TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: historic; justice; nationalist; socialist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Fred Nerks

If you are accepting that arabic speaking people are arab, then yes, some Omanis are black having migrated centuries ago. This is a construct of the Arab League which claims that anyone living in an arabic speaking country is arab so they can claim control as an arab state to expand their influence.
Genetically, black people are not arabs.

21 posted on 08/25/2009 10:31:54 PM PDT by MestaMachine (One if by land, 2 if by sea, 3 if by Air Force 1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

By the late nineteenth century, the slave trade on the open seas had been completely outlawed by the British and the Omani Arabs had little ability to resist the Royal Navy's ability to enforce the directive. The Omani presence continued in Zanzibar and Pemba until the 1964 revolution, but the official Omani Arab presence in Kenya was checked by German and British seizure of key ports and creation of crucial trade alliances with influential local leaders in the 1880s. However, the Omani Arab legacy in East Africa is currently found through their numerous descendants found along the coast that can directly trace ancestry to Oman and are typically the wealthiest and most politically influential members of the Kenyan coastal community.


22 posted on 08/25/2009 10:34:50 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (DON'T LIE TO ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

I don’t think the book was to establish paternity. I think it was to establish a racial choice he deliberately made.
I doubt that at the time he “wrote” the book, he ever thought his paternity would be his downfall.
He was/is proud of those ethnic roots even if his father was a womanizing drunk. He is, quite obviously NOT so proud of his white heritage, considers it no heritage at all. Mama was a rolling stone that gathered no moss and no worshipping chillun.
I have had occasion to speak with biracial people who chose their blackness over their whiteness, especially those with white mothers. They showed very little respect for them. One even said he hated his mother because, and this is a quote, “She slept with a black man.”
Barry didn’t have much use for his mother, but she fed him hero stories about his black father at a very young age. He identified with bam Sr because he didn’t have any use for Soetoro either.

23 posted on 08/25/2009 10:46:08 PM PDT by MestaMachine (One if by land, 2 if by sea, 3 if by Air Force 1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

I don’t think arabs give a darn about our genetic terms:

The Ancient Arabs’ Description of the Pure Arabs

The best way to get a true picture of what the original Arabs of the past looked like is to ask the original Arabs of the past themselves. So let’s take a look at what the original, pure Arabs of 1400 years ago said about the appearance of the pure Arabs...

Furthermore, if you cannot imagine how a kenyan black of any tribe, with an arab father, might choose to describe himself as an arab - as he would be entitled to - for the benefit of belonging to the ruling class, there’s nothing more for me to say on the subject.

24 posted on 08/25/2009 10:50:26 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (DON'T LIE TO ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
I don’t think the book was to establish paternity.

Then he could have called it 'Dreams From My Mother'

I think it was to establish a racial choice he deliberately made.

He could hardly have passed himself off as white...

I doubt that at the time he “wrote” the book, he ever thought his paternity would be his downfall.

depends entirely on WHO the father was.

25 posted on 08/25/2009 10:59:02 PM PDT by Fred Nerks (DON'T LIE TO ME!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

“Furthermore, if you cannot imagine how a kenyan black of any tribe, with an arab father, might choose to describe himself as an arab - as he would be entitled to - for the benefit of belonging to the ruling class, there’s nothing more for me to say on the subject.”

I understand why someone would want to describe themselves as arab for the reasons you state, but that was not the argument from the genetic standpoint of how much “percentage” is Negro vs how much was “arab.” Racially, they are different.
bam Sr never described himself, nor did any of the Luo as far as I can see, as arab. The Luo were proud of who they were/are. bam Sr’s father had a hissy fit over Dunham interfering with, “dirtying,” the Luo bloodline.
It really doesn’t matter anyway. He ain’t all anything. That is the point. He isn’t the first black president. He isn’t the first white president. He isn’t the first arab president. He is most likely not even an American born president.
His 50% whiteness eliminates him from the competition for any of those. He is a mongrel, maybe not sure of his own paternity. And WE are 99.9% sure he was not born here no matter who his daddy was.
Canada, Kenya. Whichever. I opt for Kenya.

26 posted on 08/25/2009 11:21:36 PM PDT by MestaMachine (One if by land, 2 if by sea, 3 if by Air Force 1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

“He could hardly have passed himself off as white...”

No, but he could openly reject his whiteness and be “all black” with an authentic African father and everything. His hatred of white people barely stays under his thin skin, whatever color it is.

27 posted on 08/25/2009 11:30:03 PM PDT by MestaMachine (One if by land, 2 if by sea, 3 if by Air Force 1.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

tnx for posting the pic!

28 posted on 08/26/2009 5:11:57 AM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson