Ok Liberal Democrats.  I've really been resisting the urge to compare the modern democratic national socialist agenda with what happened in Germany in the 1930's, but every time I turn around I'm running into liberal propaganda equating George Bush, John McCain or conservative republicans in general with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime.  There's an old adage which says that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," but as you persist in throwing rocks in your glass house, I'm just going to illustrate the many ways in which modern liberal democrats are much more in line with Adolph Hiler's Nazi movement than any conservative republican idea could ever be.

To be fair to liberal democrats, I'm not suggesting that liberal democrats want to commit genocide, conquer the world, or commit any of the other horrirs typically associated with Nazi Germany.  What I'm comparing is the method by hich these comparable political ideologies acquired their power and the social, political, and enconomic environments that made these movement thrive and flourish.

The biggest single element that both German Nazis and American Liberal Socialists have in common in their spokesperson.  In German, that person was Adolf Hitler.  In modern socialist America, it's Barack Obama.  What do Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler have in common?  The answers might just surprise you.  Again, I'm not suggesting that they are one and the same, far from it.  But when you like at the two men side by side, and without the emotional disgust and revulsion that one normally associates with the name Adolf Hitler, you can see some similarities between the two men.

Let's start with Adolf Hitler, since the history has largely been written on him.  Hitler came from modest means.  Hist entire youth and early adulthood were marred by poverty and social ostraccism.  His father died when he as young, and he was frustrated in his attempts to achieve recognition and success as an artist.  He blamed this faiulre not on his own lack of talent, evident to anyone who has ever seen any of his artwork, but rather on a conspiracy of Jewish professors at the Vienna Art Institute.  This belief that he was cheated by this ethnic minority formed the nucleus of his lifelong passionate anti-semitism. Obama was the bi-racial child of a divorced, single mother but even though he did not grow up in poverty, I am relatively certain he suffered some social ostracism as a child.

Hitler migrated to Germany around the ime of the outbreak of World War I, so Hitler joined the German Army.  He needed a job, and he wanted to ingratiate himself with his adopted country.  As a soldier in the German Army, Hitler distinguished himself in combat and rose to the rank of corporal, quite an achievement for a non-German, and was even awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class.  It was because of this distinction that Hitler was permitted to remain in the German Army after the mandatory downsizing of the Treaty of Versailles.  This treaty restricted the German Army to less than 100,000 personnel.  Obama never served in the military or saw combat, but he did engage in public civil service as a community organizer.

As part of his duties following the end of the war, corporal Hitler was assigned by his commanding officer, Captain Ernst Roehm (that's right, the same Ernst Roehm who would later head the Sturmabteilung, the SA browshirted stormtroopers), to attend political meetings to determine if any of the activities or topics of conversation could be considered subversive or illegal under the new Weimar Republican Constitution.  Once such group was the German Worker's Party.   Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party in a beer hall in Munich and what he heard there was a message that extolled the virtues of German ideals, the supremacy of German might, the and the ability of Germany to rise again and take its' place once more among the leaders of the world. 

To a fervent nationalist like corporal Adolf Hitler, these words resonated and enthralled the young Hitler so much so that he not only failed to report the group, he actually joined it.  When questioned by Captain Roehm about his experiences, he told Roehm that he did not see anything subversive or illegal about the group in that meeting, but that he should attend future meetings to make sure that there was nothing for the government to be concerned about.   The next time Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party, he requested permission to address the meeting.  As he was the group's newest member, they were only too happy to have him speak.  When he spoke, his spellbinding oratory moved the group to such an extent that membership increased immediately, and Hitler was made the spokesman for the group from that time forward.  Obama and the liberal socialists of the democratic party are also strong in the labor movement and enjoy union support.  Is it a coincidence that the Nazi party started life as a labor union?

Ironically, Hitler knew that if this group were to become a political force that could achieve any significant political power, there would have to be some changes made.  He started with the name of the group, because he understood instinctively that if the party were to achieve any success, it was going to have to appeal to Germans from all social and economic classes and a worker's party implied that the members were blue-collar laborers who carried lunch boxes was pumpernickel sandwiches and warm beer in the thermos.  This image was not likely to appeal to the aristocracy, the illuminati, the glitterati, or the professionals he would need to attract to the party.

Germany, unlike France, Russia, and other countries that had experienced revolutions, did not disposses or murder its aristocrats when it became a republic.   Even though Germany had been a feudal monarchy prior to World War I, and the ruling Kaiser and his family and court fled the country at the war's end, the German citizenry still had respect and admiration for its' nobility.  Many of the heroes of the war were from noble families and Hitler knew he would need the support of men with Von in their names if he were to achieve political power.  He also knew he would need to associate himself with academic, political, military, and celebrity personalities to increase his popular appeal.  Sound familiar?  It wasn't John McCain that was supported by the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg.  Then factor in Colin Powell, Bruce Springstein, Kanye West, P-Diddy Combs, etc. and you have a modern comparison.

Regardless of his entourage, Hitler could not achieve any significant political successes until the advent of the Great Depression.  It is only in a climate of economic misery and unbridled fear that the message of national socialism sounds even remotely attractive.  Hitler used the depression, the runaway inflation that made it necessary to take a wheelbarrow full of German currency to the bakery to buy a loaf of bread, and the rampant economic unrest  to push his message of national pride, hope, and a return to past glories.  Sound familiar?  

With lines like "Germany forever," and "The German people are the rightful masters of the world," Hitler seduced the German citizens to support him, but even with all of these things going for him, he still couldn't win the power he sought.  His newly named National Socialist, or "Nazi" party was gaining seats in the Reichstag, or Germany's congress, but it couldn't claim a majority against the communists, labor unionists, and worse, the democratic republicans who still believed in the viability of the Weimar Republic.  Obama ran his campaign with slogans like "Yes we can," "I believe in you," "Our best days are ahead." etc.

Also problematic to Hitler's ambitions was the advocacy of the media against him.  Newspapers and radio newscasters were trying to sound the alarm about Hitler and the true intentions of the Nazis.  Unfortunately, Hitler had such reserves of cash and celebrity power that he was able to counter and ulitimately stifle and silence his critics.  If you examine the ways this was done, you really begin to see some frightening similarities between Hitler's Nazis and modern liberal democratic politics.  

First, the Nazis sued their popular appeal and celebrity endorsers to boycott and punish by economic means, any newspaper or radio program that spoke negatively about Hitler or the Nazis.  Economic assault proved to be very effective, but sometimes even that wasn't enough.  When the economic muscle failed, Hitler brought in the stormtroopers, the brownshirted thugs of the SA, to help the misguided writers, editors, or broadcasters see the light.  Sometimes this was done by trashing the newsspaper offices, destroying the presses, or burning down the building.  If that didn't do it, the stormtroopers would kick in the door of a journalist or editor whose writing they didn't like and maybe kick in his teeth, break his arms or some other such violence.  If the target were too popular for such brutality, then the Nazis would engage in the politics of personal destruction to silence their critics.  This could be accomplished a number of ways, but the most common was to photograph the person talking to a little girl or gay man, and release the photo charging all manner of innapropriate conduct, labeling the man as either a pedophile or a homosexual, effectively marginalizing him and alienating his public followers.  He could then be shipped off to a prison or conentration camp with little or no public outcry.  The politics or personal destruction.  Sound familiar?  Just ask Joe Werzelbacher or "Joe the Plumber" as he's more appropriately known.  Ask Sarah Palin, if you need another example.

Silencing one's political critics is essential when you're trying to promote an agenda that if it were ever objectively examined would be denounced and defeated.  The Nazis systematically removed any and all independent media outlets by passing laws that made it a criminal offense to publish or broadcast anything not approved by the Nazi Party.  Sound familiar?  The liberal socialists are idealogically aligned with nealy all of the mainstream medis, so there are no worries about unfavorable press there.  The same is true with most broadcast and cable television channels.  The only media the liberal socialists do not control is talk radio and the internet.  Talk radio is almost exclusively dominated by popular and therefore powerful conservative spokemen and the liberal socialists was to silence these critics.  Since they have failed to compete in the arena of ideas, they are turning to the same kind of government intervention that the Nazis relied upon, only now it's hypocritically referred to as the "fairness" doctrine.  As for the internet, there have been rumblings about laws ti require the registration of political websites.  While this would seem to fairly apply to all such sites, it effectively draws a bullseye on the backs of conservative political writers.  After all, if we register, then they know where to send the stormtroopers, don't they?

Now, again to be fair, I'm not saying that Obama and the liberal socialist democrats are the Nazis.  I'm not suggesting they are even remotely as malevolent, meglomaniacal, or genocidal as the Nazi proved to be.  What I AM suggesting, is that there are remarkable and frightening similarities about how they acieved their power, and how they are attempting to keep it.  If this last election cycle proved anything, it was that Nazi political tactics are alive and well and currently being used.

For the unbelievers that doubt that today's liberal socialists don't have their stormtroopers, their gestapo, their SS, etc. you would be very wrong.  Ever heard of ACORN?  Those are the modern equivalent of stormtroopers, complete with kooky orange hats and uniform shirts.  They are the thugs that strongarm the opposition by breaking into foreclosed homes, registering dead and fraudulent voters, and engaging in other quasi criminal enterprises they dismiss as "civil disobedience" when confronted with their acts.  Not surprisingly, there was a federal investigation into the activities of this group before the recent election, but I'm pretty willing to bet that this investigation will either become a whitewash, or will be swept under the rug altogether given the political sympthies of the group and its long history with our own Supreme Community Organizer in Chief.  Of course, in true Hitlerian fashion, if his stormtroopers prove to be too big a political embarassment, their might be another virtual "Night of Long Knives" in which Obama, like Hitler before him, determines it's more politically expedient to throw his stormtroopers under the bus and allow the justice department to prosecute them fully.  Hitler used his SS, to arrest and murder the leadership of the Stormtroopers, including his old friend and Commanding Officer Ernest Roehm, when he needed the support of the German Army.  

Who then are the modern liberal socialist's version of the SS?  Well, that is a little more subtle a comparison. There are no uniformed, jackbooted, mass murders in the liberal socialist party that I'm aware of.  However, if you visit sites like "the Daily Coast," "The Huffington Post," "Move on.or" or others of this ilk, you begin to see some similarities to the ideological purity espoused by Heinrich Himmler.  Though not a racial issue today like it was with the Nazis of history, ideology has replaced race in the modern liberal socialist dogma. Today it is not Jews that are the target of liberal socialist ire, it is the "rich."  Ironic when you consider that most of the liberal socialist poster boys and girls are themselves "rich."  Still, it is the "rich" that are demonized and attacked by the liberal socialists. 

Could today's "rich" end up in concentration camps?  Well, read the editorials and blogs that call for the removal from office, and criminal prosecution of the Wall Street Banking and Trading executives that the liberal socialist propogandists blame for today's economic woes.  Noticeable absent from the calls for incarceration, are the liberal socialists whose social engineering hubris is equally to blame.  I'm not defending the Wall streeters here.  If they violated laws, they should be held accountable.  I don't think anyone doubts that Bernie Madoff's days in his park avenue high rise are numbered.  There is, however, something funabmentally wrong with the notion that executives who ran a business and achieved economic success for their efforts should be punished for doing the things that have made them successful in the past merely because they were forced to take govermnent money.  Still, these executives may well be made scapegoats for the ills of today's society much in the same way the Jews were scapegoated by the Nazis.  It is equally disingenuous behavior on the part of the socialist regimes whether in Germany in the 30's or here today.

Now, maybe next time you see an ACORN worker on the street in their inconspicous bright orange shirt and hat, give 'em a "Heil."  They might just "heil" you back.  And now that I've sufficient degressed myself, I'm getting the "heil" out of here to go do some serious drinking.  'Til we "meet" again.

Like so many other government ideas, the "fairness" doctrine is a deliberate misnomer.  The innocuous sounding words totally obfuscate and distract the reader from their true meaning.  If the "fairness" doctrine lived up to its' name, it wouldn't be such a bad thing because fundamentally we're all for fairness and equality, or so the politically correct among us would have us believe.

The problem is that if the "fairness" doctrine were what it purported to be and were "fairly" and bi-laterally applied, it really would improve the balance of ideologies because it would actually give conservatives more of a voice in the traditional network and cable television media, which are now predominantly sources for liberal propaganda as opposed to honest and accurate journalism.,

If there were anything "fair" about the fairness doctrine, you would see liberal idealogues like Chris Matthew of MSNBC paired with a conservative bloviator like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.  In fact, every mainstream news or political program on every other station than Fox would actually be "fair and balanced" for a change. That is how we can know that there is nothing "fair" about the fairness doctrine.  If there were, conservatives would be for it and liberals would be howling against it.

As things now stand, the liberals are championing the "fairness' doctine because they see it as a vehicle with with the either censor, or better still, eliminate the one platform that conservatives have to voice their opposition to the liberal steamroling of everything conservatives believe in and support.  The talk radio format is predominantly conservative because if you really listen to the liberal talk radio programs, they are nothing more than angry diatribes by failed and frustrated actors and comedians and their content is nothing more than "Bush is bad."  Who in their right mind is going to listen to hours of that?

Consequently, liberal talk radio shows have been commercially unsuccessful.  This is the free market place judging the quality of the product, NOT the political censorship claimed by the left.  But like most liberals, the leftist idealogues cannot accept that it is their PRODUCT that is defective so they run to the government and/or the courts to give them a "bailout."  Rather than improve their product and put on programming th

So onceat's actually entertaining, they prefer instead to have the government force their square pegs into our round holes with the force of a mallet.

If this is allowed to occur, radio stations that carry programs like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. will be forced to give similar time allotments to people like Al Franken (if he's not too busy screwing up in the senate to keep screwing up on the radio), Janeane Garafalo, Randy Rhodes, etc.  Whle some liberal entertainers are able to put on an entertaining and comercially successful program, the number of liberal radio failures far outweigh the successes.  The only successful liberal radio hosts I can think of are Don Imus and Stephanie Miller, both of whom I actually enjoy listening to.

What the liberals don't seem to get is that no one likes to listen to angry diatribes when they're driving in their cars or sitting in their homes.  If liberal radio programs would focus on entertaining as well as bloviating negativity, they might find a receptive audience somewhere.  Rush Limbaugh gets accused of being an angry man all the time, but if you actually listen to what he says, his message is very positive, not unlike the messages of Barack Obama, at least BEFORE he was elected.  But once again the libs show their true colors and their distrust is not disdain for the free market and the judgment of the American Public.  They would rather have the government force their excruciatingly dull and unpleasant diatribes down our throats than to follow the lead of shows like Saturday Night Live and add some decent content to entertain their audiences inbetween the torture sessions that liberal talk can be equated to.

If this "fairness" doctrine passes, the radio stations will be forced to air these ratings duds and will be hard-pressed to find advertisers willing to pay to run their ads in the time slots when no one is listening.  This is because despite their best efforts to force their programming on us, we the listening public still have the right to vote with our radio dials and the off switches.  They can lead us to their brackish water, but they can't make us drink it and the advertisers know this.  This is why Air America failed as a commercial enterprise and all other such programs devoid of any entertainment content will do likewise.  What this means is that radio stations will be giving advertisement time on liberal talk radio shows free with a gallon of gas.  

What's next for the liberal-socialist left?  If they succeed in putting radio stations out of business, will they then come after the internet?  Considering so much of their message and support is due to the internet, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they try to do so.  Of course, considering liberals are famous for forming "circular firing squads" when they attempt to do anything, we can only hope.

If the "fairness" doctrine were really fair and the net result of it would be more shows like "Hannity & Colmes," I would be the first in line to sign a petition in favor of it.  As much as I disagree politically with Alan Colmes, the ping-pong effect between him and Sean Hannity and the rigorous questioning and rehabiliting of guests that were either liberal or conservative by a moderator of the opposite political ideology was a good thing.  If we can't have civil but spirited political debate in this country, we really are in the last days of the great experiment known as the United States of America.  I pray this is not the case. Won't you pray with me?

In ancient Rome a man by the name of Gaius Julius Caesar came to power because he understood a very simple principle. He understood that the average Roman citizen preferred the gifst of a dictator to earning those same things through their own industry and effort in the free market economy that Rome was fortunate enough to have at the time. Caesar consolidated his power by using the spoils of his conquests in Germany, France, and Briain to buy the affection and loyalty of the common or plebian class of Rome. In doing this, he violated the age-old undertanding with his fellow nobles of the Patrician class which ultimately led to his assasination at the hands of those self-same Patrician senators he had angered.

Consider the key words in the pharae "Gifts of a Dictator" and you get a clearer picture of why such gifts are not, or should not, be preferable to the rewards earned in a free market economy. The first word, "gift" implies something given freely and with love from a friend, relative, or loved one. Gifts conjure images of Christmas, birthdays, families and friends. These are generally positive images that invoke warm and fuzzy sentiments. Now consider the word "Dictator" and a much different image comes to mind. Personally I think of the more tryannical Caesars such as Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero. If you're less inclined towards the classics, you have the more modern examples such as Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. These names definitely do NOT invoke any warm and fuzzy sentiments.The gifts from a dictator are very likely to come with serious strings attached and it is those strings that make the case for NOT taking any gifts from a dictatorial entity. After all, the entity that has the power to give gifts also has the power to take them away whereas what you earn by your own efforts, no one can take from you with the possible exception of the government by taxation.

If you need a more concrete example of why a political encomony is not a good thing, take a look at the largest political economy in modern history, the former Soviet Union. In the last 70's, the era of the leisure suit, platform shoes, and discos like Studio 54, there was a climactic anomaly that started with an unusually early warming period followed by a very bitter cold snap. This resulted in the decimation of the corn and grain crops of the former Soviet Union and did considerable damage to the US farmers crops as well. The difference was that unlike the farms of the Soviet Union, which suffered more than 90% crop losses, the US farms only suffered about 30% losses. The US farmers were able to sell their crops at a higher cost, but they were still able to feed not only the US, but were able to sell food to the Soviet Union as well. Though there was no formal trade between the US and the Soviets at the time, President Carter offered to sell food to Premier Leonid Breznev to keep the Russian people rom starving and possibly preventing another Russian Revolution.Anyone who has ever looked at a map of the former Soviet Union couldn't help but notice that the USSR had signicantly more farmland than the USA. Also noteworthy is the fact the farms in the Soviet Union were not the small family farm operations that we have in the USA, but ratherlarge collective industrial operations with thousands of workers whose career path had been predestined by their aptitude test scores at the elementary school level. Notwithstanding the fact that these farm workers were less than thrilled with their jobs, they still had to DO the work or they risked ending up in the army or a gulag.

Given these apparent advantages, why were the Soviets unable to feed their population without our assistance. The answer is very simple. Because US farms are predominantly family owned small businesses, when the crops were in danger of freezing, US farmers were willing to get themselves and their families out of bed in the middle of the night with hair dryers plugged into extention cords to warm their crops and prevent them from freezing to death. They were also willing to work through the night laying down plastic to protect the crops thereby saving their harvests. They were willing to take these extra measures because if they did not, they would not eat. Furthermore, if they couldn't sell their crops at market, they would not be able to pay their mortgages, car notes, etc. The difference between US and Soviet Farmers is that US farmers were motivated to go the extra mile because they had "skin in the game" to borrow one of President Obama's favorite expressions. The Soviet farmers, while being forced to work hard when they were on the farm, were nowhere to be found in the middle of the night when the damage was being done, because like most employees, they were home in bed and would not return to the farms until the following morning which was too late to save their crops.This is why you don't choose a political economy when you are blessed with a free market econmy.

If there are those who seem willing to throw it away, it can only be because they either don't understand what they are giving up, or they are too lazy in their thought processeses to take advantage of the opportunities available to anyone and everyone in this economic system. I'm not calling American workers lazy, only lazy thinkers if they think that the government can take better care of them than they can take of themselves with a little smart work on their part.

Opportunities for success are as common in this free market economy as is sand on the beach. The problem most people have is that they expect to reap the rewards without putting out the effort. A free market ecomony is like an ocean full of fish. If you know how to fish, you'll never go hungry. Unfortunately, most Americans have forgotten how to catch a fish and prefer instead to get their fish from the freezer section at the local supermarket.There's an old saying that says "if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." This sums up free market capitalism in a nutshell. You'll never starve in a market driven economy if you know how to bait a hook. cast a line, and pull out a fish. But most of us don't know how to do those things and would prefer for the government to just pass out fish to those willing to stand in line to get them. The problem with that is that the government doesn't fish, either.

In order for the government to give you free fish, it must first confiscate the fish from the fishermen who braved the icy waters of the North Atlantic, ripped their hands to shreds pulling nets full of fish from those icy waters, and descaled and cut off the heads and tails, gutted, and cleaned the fish, and were expecting to sell those fish for profit so they could pay their bills as well as feed some of the fish to their families. Imagine if you were such a fisherman and when you pulled back into the harbor you were met by a government bureaucrat and armed federal agents who confiscated your cargo, but left you only enough fish to feed your family. You would be furious at those developments, of course. But the real conssequence of this confiscation would be that you might be less willing to go out and brave those icy waters again when it would be just as easy for you to sleep in and then go stand in line waiting for your free fish that the givernment confiscated from some other sap dumb enough to go out and put his life on the line. Eventually, no one is going to brave those icy waters and they where will we be? I seriously doubt that the givernment is going to go fishing to feed the rest of us while we stand idly by on shore waiting for our handouts.

I gave you an example of a political economy that failed so now let me show you what is possible in a free market economy. A high school graduate decided he didn't want to go to college but didn't want to work at a job for someone else either. He persuaded his parents to let him take his tuition money and use it to buy a sandwich shop that we know today as Subway. This free market economy also enabled a couple of friends working in their parents garage to invent a gadget that was the basis for the company we now call Apple. Other kids working in garages formed mult-billion dollar multinational companies like Google, Yahoo, and so many more.

People like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others of their ilk, including the biggest liberal success story of them all, Oprah Winfrey, owe their successes to our free market economy. Only in America would their stories be possible. Maybe we could take a minute to think about what we're so willing to throw away before we make the decisions that could eliminate our economic system and with it our prospects for success, especially if we're willing to exchange the infinite possibilities inherent in a free market ecnomy for a few measly gifts from a dictatorial entity.

As we should have learned in grade school, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it, even if it isn't you, so let me leave you with this closing thought. Aesop told a fable about a dog with a bone who saw his reflection in a river as he was crossing over a bridge. Unfortuately, the dog didn't realize that he was looking at his own reflection and thought he saw another dog with another large bone. Naturally, the dog thought he would take the other dog's bone and have two bones for himself. So he opened his jaw to snatch the other bone and as he did so, his own bone fell into the river and sank out of sight. The moral of the story is "be careful when grasping at shadows or you may lose what is real. Just something to think about.