The natives are getting restless...

[Grace]

Personally, I think she's as wacky as a Saturday morning cartoon.

[Puckstop31]

Fair enough. But can you please tell me why you think that? I ask because the historical parallels are undeniable.

Now, before you dismiss me, I need to explain a bit further. No, I do not think the current administration has a goal of exterminating a race of people as the Nazis did. Nor do I think that they have evil intentions. but I do believe their goals are completley fascist in their nature. It will be "nanny state" fascism, but fascism none the less.

Dictionary.com defines fascism as...

"(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

We are not fully there yet, but it is going that way. There is time to stop it, but only if more people will be willing to see what is going on.

Have you ever wondered why the President's "Auto Task Force" has not ONE person on it who actually knows the Auto Industry? Better yet, how does he know what "cars the American people want to buy" are?

Death and suppression by a thousand paper cuts.

[Grace]

You lost me as soon as I read her diatribe. This over-the-top hysteria because Obama was elected President - as my husband says, some people always have to have a bogeyman.

When one spews extreme vitriol, one only succeeds in pushing people away – alienating them.

[Puckstop31]

You lost me as soon as I read her diatribe. This over-the-top hysteria because Obama was elected President - as my husband says, some people always have to have a bogeyman.
When one spews extreme vitriol, one only succeeds in pushing people away – alienating them.

EXACTLY. For this President, it just happens to be big business. Soon, it will be some other "crisis". A crisis that only HE (government) can solve. If that solution requires a little bit of Liberty be lost, so be it.

GWB did the same thing. Did you defend people on your side "spewing vitriol" in the EXACT same manner as this op-ed does? But personally, I do not see how drawing a historical comparison is "vitriol". That's the cool thing about historical fact... Its FACT. We can disagree with the conclusion of intent, but there is no denying the comparison.

So, you could be right. We could end up living in a land of sunshine and roses. But then again, there is historical precedent for what is going on and the results have always been the same.

[Grace]

When I said as my husband says, some people always have to have a bogeyman., I was referring to the author of the article you posted.

I don’t want to get into a name-calling thing with you, but Obama Derangement Syndrome seems to be a problem for Ms Geller. She believes that "any black man is ineligible to run for President and that any vote for himself or anyone else is invalid". That tells me all I need to know about this person.

I don’t argue with the historical facts – I argue with her comparing Obama with the leaders of the Third Reich.

I’m sorry you agree with her. I thought better of you. Now I’m out of this very unpleasant topic.

[kuhio98]

I don’t want to get into a name-calling thing with you, but Obama Derangement Syndrome seems to be a problem for Ms Geller. She believes that "any black man is ineligible to run for President and that any vote for himself or anyone else is invalid". That tells me all I need to know about this person.

Please cite your source for that quote. I didn't see it in the above posting. I'm interested in learning more.

[Grace]

Please cite your source for that quote. I didn't see it in the above posting. I'm interested in learning more.

source

Puck, if you had used this article, I would have given your topic more serious thought.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I don’t argue with the historical facts – I argue with her comparing Obama with the leaders of the Third Reich.

You may not argue with historical facts -- but most historians do!

"Facts" -- as it used is a slippery word. The Allies won WWII. That is a fact. We know because there are documents with that and signatures, etc.

But HOW they won the war? That all becomes interpretation and analysis. One historian may consider a certain battle the "key" another a different battle.

I am a volunteer at a local historical site. We frequently have historian come in and speak to us. No two have the same story. And - if you have a Native American historian and a historian whose focus is the European view -- Look out! Sparks are going to fly. Last week it was historians from two branches of the local tribe -- even they don't agree.

I once visited a WWII museum in Normandy. I will never forget one line from the film they showed - About the "surprisingly audacious Yanks" who sort of popped in at the end and helped out a bit.

There is an expression that "history is written by the side that won the war." That is why the name "Civil War" is more common than "War of Northern Aggression."

So to suggest that someone's interpretation or analysis of historical events is a valid predictor of future events is to confuse cause with effect. The effect is the fact...the cause is opinion. If that was not true -- there would only be one book on history.

p.s. I so often hear people compare Obama to Hitler based on his oratory skills and his desire to change how our government works. Great communicator who wants to change government -- doesn't that describe Reagan? Yet, I never hear him compared to Hitler.

[Grace]

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life.

I went searching and found 2 books by Pamela Geller. One by Pamela L. Geller; the other by Pamela A. Geller. I’m reasonably sure that neither of these women is the Pam Geller from Atlas Shrugs - the author of the piece Puck posted. (Alliteration anyone?)

Do you frequent that site on a regular basis? Dingbat is the word lizbud used to describe her – I think that is a kind assessment.

[Puckstop31]

You may not argue with historical facts -- but most historians do!

"Facts" -- as it used is a slippery word. The Allies won WWII. That is a fact. We know because there are documents with that and signatures, etc.

But HOW they won the war? That all becomes interpretation and analysis. One historian may consider a certain battle the "key" another a different battle.

To argue the value of a certain engagement, in the scope of a campaign and it's effects on the over all resolution of a conflict is one thing... To say that how the leaders of the Third Reich came to power is still a matter for wide debate is another matter entirely. The very fact that the Nazi's documented almost everything they did provides more than enough evidence on it's own. But couple that evidence with reading Mein Kampf..... Barring a new discovery, the course of events in Central Europe in the decade and a half before WWII are well known.

Don't belive me? Read some the the U.S. authors, the self described "progressives" fawning over Mussolini and Hitler in the 1930's. You have to really dig to find it, but it is there.

I once visited a WWII museum in Normandy. I will never forget one line from the film they showed - About the "surprisingly audacious Yanks" who sort of popped in at the end and helped out a bit.

Ahh the English.... LOL

There is an expression that "history is written by the side that won the war." That is why the name "Civil War" is more common than "War of Northern Aggression."

It's better to say that "the side that won is the version that is taught." There is PLENTY of material on WWII writen from the Axis players.

p.s. I so often hear people compare Obama to Hitler based on his oratory skills and his desire to change how our government works. Great communicator who wants to change government -- doesn't that describe Reagan? Yet, I never hear him compared to Hitler.

It's not his oratory skills. I belive Obama is not as great a orator as we are lead to belive. A great orator does not sound like a 15 Y/O boy asking a girl out on a date. Without the prompter, its almost uncomfortable to listen to him. Nor is it his desire to change government that I draw the comparison. Its HOW he wants to change things. Clearly he wants more power for the Federal Government. It's not the things he promises... All politicans make promises... It's HOW he wants to make those promises come true. He wants you to depend on somebody else, rather than empowering you to do it yourself.

Dependance = slavery.

[blue]

"any black man is ineligible to run for President and that any vote for himself or anyone else is invalid".

Did anybody actually check the FECs press releases to see if this is factual?

[blue]

"any black man is ineligible to run for President and that any vote for himself or anyone else is invalid"

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

Until somebody can post a factual link for the source of Grace's quote, the second quote proves true.

Please prove my above statement wrong. I will humbly admit I was wrong.

[Catty1]

Try this - I don't have time to back-check it, but it seems to have been written by Geller in August of last year.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2008/08/p...over-edge.html