It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'World Leader' to Obama: Explain Why 'They're Putting a Hitler Moustache On You'

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by Kryties

I am quite sure from my dealings with people that statistically niether Europe nor Oz nor Canada is quite as affected by the quest for money and power as the sole source of value in life as Americans as a whole are.

It hurts me to say these things, but it is true...

I have many friends who are doctors and I know how little thinking they actually do, how they treat by prescription and not people and walk blindly not daring to question many modern methods and disease treatments that are flawed...

Under no circumstances will I allow myself to be mandated this sort of treatment...charge me what you will for others that want and believe as they do

Just don't force me to conform in practce

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by piddles

Obama is not Hitler

He means well

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:44 AM
reply to post by mopusvindictus

...and that road is paid in blood.

Best way to describe Obama .

People think electing someone of another anything will mean positive change. He is a cheap salesmen selling socialism (communism) through the use of the words hope and change.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Pathos]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 10:18 AM
The whole American fascism movement originated long before Obama was born. Some will even say that the US was an experiment that was designed to end in a global oligarchy

I would point readers in the direction of the 14th amendment signed shortly after the end of the Civil War as the defining moment in US fascism

The 14th amendment was presented as a necessary constitution change to allow for ex slaves to receive the same rights as natural born americans

It sounds like a good thing make all US citizens equal, however what the 14th Amendment did is make all US citizens equal in their servitude to govermental debt. It was a classic Psy Op , Instead of making us all free it made us all slaves, not to the plantation field but to the US government

Shortly there after laws were enacted to make coroporations "legal" immortal citizens, then the federal reserve act and the IRS added to the bondage of the US citizens.

1948 saw the National Security Act which gives the POTUS the power to ignore the US constitution in matters of national security

and finally the Patriot Act and FISA laws which even allow other agencies to disregard the constitution

The issue with Barack Obama is that he openly campaigned for change, but continues to support the Patriot Act the Warrantless wire tapping, the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan as well as maintaining rendition and torture centers

Finally, even though he campaigned to leave a 5 day review period for any bill he would sign into law; he has not complied with his own accord

Now he wants congress to sign an unfinished Health Care plan into law before it is finished or even read by anyone, just like the stimulus bill and the Bailout bill (which he signed without reading as a senator)

So, Hitler moustache or not, Obama has done nothing to prevent the US from becoming a national socialist state.

If your not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

The legal term would be guilty demeanor

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 11:17 AM
After talking to several of my friends and family, I noticed that everyone is speaking from the same microphone. If we cannot restore the constitution through reasonable means, we are 'all' going to war to replace our government with those who uphold constitutional law. Above all other laws that exist, the constitution will be reborn stronger than ever.

Only a cold day in hell can pull the Constitution from my heart, mind, and soul. Our politicians better be listening. Time is ticking.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Pathos]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by NWRHINO

So, Hitler moustache or not, Obama has done nothing to prevent the US from becoming a national socialist state.

Has he not? I wonder... have you listened to the other side of the issue? I don't necessarily mean Obama supporters.


**(To the More General Readership)**

At any rate, for the moment, lets examine the common labels Socialist and Fascist. Rather than use standard or objective sources, where possible, I will try to use/link the writings of those organizations who THEMSELVES advocate the advancement of these movements. I will try to limit my scope as it applies to organizational sentiments regarding Obama & Policies for the sake of my own personal convenience. Feel free to explore and read further into their opinions. Just as not all Conspiracy Theorists hold the same views, many socialists, nationalists, and fascists have their own communities and forums where they discuss issues. After all, shouldn't THEIR voice count in a free and open society?

First up, the charge of Socialism.


Socialist International: An international coalition of socialist parties across the globe dedicated to the advancement of Democratic Socialism. Upon a cursory search, the only relevant piece as a statement of congratulations to President Obama and a hope for better relations in light of the previous administration.

The Socialist International welcomes the victory of Barack Obama in the U.S. elections and sees in it the hope for a world community based more on cooperation, mutual understanding and respect rather than antagonism and discord.

I did not find a congratulatory statement regarding either Bush election, but I did find a statement of condolences on the 1 year anniversary of 9/11. Although, to me, it seemed a bit shamelessly self-promotional.

As an American representative member of the Socialist International Movement, the Democratic Socialists of America recommended this recently posted video in which a Ithaca, NY member explains in his view why Obama is not a socialist. There is an abridged version on YouTube, but I will link to the Full 30 min Version.

Socialist Party USA seems to have a less optimistic view of the hopes for Obama Administration cooperation.

Sadly, the Obama presidency will offer little of the “change” and “hope” it promised throughout the campaign. Early indications are that his administration will be directed by a free-market capitalist agenda and his policies will seek to enhance the profitability of corporations at the expense of working-class America. People can expect little in the way of fundamental change in healthcare, militarism or wealth redistribution. Winning these much needed changes will be the duty of broad social movements.

According to The Socialist (Jan/Feb 2009 issue)

We know, of course, that Obama is not a socialist, and that he is not a radical. That should not keep us from rejoicing in the defeat of John McCain. I've never been able to subscribe to the notion that if the worst side wins the working class will be one step closer to victory. I think, on the contrary, we will find it easier to work in a political climate where there is hope that change is possible. Yes, we need to press Obama on a dozen fronts. I could list many, but I'll list just a few.

The author then lists several initiative points, some of which have occurred, some in which the address was partial or counter to the author's intent, and some which definitely have not and likely WILL not change. The article then follows...

These are not socialist steps - just reasonable parts of a program for a renewal of our nation. And they are hardly a full list! But what I think very important about this election is something I've not heard others comment on - the return of a sense of a "civil society" in which citizens felt they had a right to speak to, and be heard by their government

Most here, I'm sure, would find fault with that above statement. Whether one feels their voice is being heard, whether one feels the outreach in dialog is met by "less than civil" discourse, or both.

In either case, the general sentiment of the sites seems to imply strong criticism of both the bail out initiative as well as form of Health Care reform being proposed. So to call Obama a socialist on this point seems to run very counter to what actual socialists are pushing for.

In regards to label of being Fascist.

In the short time I've spent looking for representative organizations or publications, it's difficult to track down even semi-reliable Fascist websites with focus more on America as a nation - rather than dividing into race. Perhaps other members can find more worthwhile sources. Certainly, the stigma of WWII Nazi Germany as a cultural "boogieman" (whether deserved or not being irrelevant to the point) has likely forced a stigma against such promotion.

I did find a rather crude half constructed site claiming to be the American Fascist Movement which claims the movement is:

-- Pro-: Meritocracy (Length of citizenship & service determines social worth), Sacrifice (actions motivated without economic incentive), Nationalism (America first, America only), State Corporatism (Free Markets w/ regulation to ensure national prosperity), Virtue (Defense of the State above public opinion or corporate interests).

--Against: Racism/Nazism (Race is irrelevant to the benefit of the state), Materialism (See Site), Globalism (sovereignty & protection of world cultures), Capitalism/Communism (materialistic oppression), Superficiality (Two wings, same bird - popularity contest).

Seeking a more generalized an accepted definition of Fascism by which to then narrow my search of similarities with current political movements & ideologies, I was faced with a problem. Which definition is the right one? This is a sentiment expressed by George Orwell (author of Animal Farm & 1984):

George Orwell: What is Fascism.

Even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

This seems to be exactly the case in America. Left-Wingers calling Bush a fascist, and Right-Wingers calling Obama a fascist. Independents calling them both fascists. And wouldn't then, sentiments such as "If your not part of the solution you are part of the problem", or "You're either with us, or against us" constitute as fascist sentiments?

How then do we establish who has a point and who is just "calling bully"?

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Personally, I am dubious as to the amount of circumspection put into such claims as lobbied against either the previous or present administration.

Of course, parallels to Hitler imply sympathy for Hitler's flavor of fascism. The National Socialist "Nazi" party. Who are today's self-promoted representatives?

The American Nazi Party.
National Socialist Party (of America)

This is the face of fascism unabashedly sympathetic to Hitler's views. While I detest the thought of spreading hate material, I would feel they are necessary to the context of the point. They are there if you so dare to seriously challenge whether or not Obama fits the profile of a "Nazi", and what they think of Obama's Administration.

An interesting final example, the Libertarian National Socialist Movement. They apparently denounce hate, and seek a cleaner - greener environment through segregation of race to ancestral lands and racial purity/cultural preservation. ... I thought it was a troll, but apparently not.


A word on Nationalism following in the next post.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:59 PM
From what i know people in the US vote for a lot of things, mayor, sherrif, congress etc..which is a good thing imo.
What if the people can also vote for the members of the Supreme court?[which maybe pre-selected] and so to judge laws and test them to the constitution, which still is the soveignty of the people!

The check and balances[trias politica] is imo the best thing in the system of the US.and more power to the people whouldnt be such a bad idea.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by Foppezao]

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 07:36 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

I guess I had "hope" that Obama would "change" something like JFK and end funding for a foreign war or authorize congress to mint dollars outside the federal reserve system, maybe even overhaul the failed(post911) intelligence system

...of course maybe Obama is more concerned about what the elite may think of his actions than JFK did(history would suggest it may be prudent)

Nixon ended the war in Vietnam

Carter had the CIA dismantled

Reagan broke the air traffic controllers Union

Bush,Clinton,Bush II opened up the financial markets to run on pure speculation, maybe its just a trend...

So, you never know he still has a few years to make some changes

but so far it seems Obama is in the backpocket of WallStreet

No candidate ever received more financial support from WallStreet bankers than the fact that all of his moves seem to benefit bankers more than non bankers is a bit unsettling.

Then again he may have a secret plan (time travel, teleportation,ect) which will cause a paradigm shift in our current economy and there by render the bankers powerless

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

(Continuation from above post, as well as my perspective)

Nationalism deserves a mention in this context as well, as it's become a rather important topic - especially as of late. In general terms, Nationalism is a sentiment of focus which stipulates that the primary focus of a population or collective society should be on the nation, a collective of people, of cultures, etc. It is a pervasive sentiment which intersects with a vast array of political ideologies. While it has inspired both isolationist and expansionist pushes for policy change, it's most famously been employed in regards to race and cultural/identity. However, it does not expressly exclude multiculturalism and globalization... provided it's believed either will promote the advancement of the nation/people above that of others as a leader on the world stage, rather than just an active player. (Globalization works in a non-linear (and not obvious) manner. Though this is a subject for another thread)

The website Pan-Nationalism promotes a racial/cultural view of Nationalism which they describe as the separation of Nation and State, with the good of a collective people over the promotion of economic or political advancement.

In a world where human thoughtlessness in the name of enhancing personal wealth is ruining our environment and turning our lives into passages between grey concrete tunnels to fulfil ultimately meaningless tasks, nationalism is a re-assertion of the organic bond between individual and society. By placing culture before commerce, nationalism advocates a more meaningful daily life.

They host a link page to other various Nationalist Groups, Forums, etc, from around the world. Though, many of the links seem to be broken.

While they describe nationalists as primarily socialists, assuming this were true for the moment, nationalist sentiments run extremely parallel to opposing non-socialist viewpoints. The Libertarian/Independent Party seems to attract the most outspoken Nationalist sentiments due to it's cultural enshrinement of Constitutional American values as proposed by the common stereotype of the founding fathers, despite the fact that they had rather different views, politics, alliances, and visions for America. Thomas Jefferson vs Alexander Hamilton for example. This is why proponents such as Bob Basso will unabashedly characterize Thomas Paine, because he played the role of unifier in the call to Independence - yet his actual visions for American Independence and Liberty go largely ignored. Today, he would undoubtedly be labeled a Multiculturalist and Socialist for his actions in France as well as arguments lain out in Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice. But this doesn't matter to the Nationalist streak in the movement. What matters is the promotion of the Nation as an identity. Even if that identity is false, the claim has been made, the inspiration isn't.

The Far Right and Left aren't exempt by any means either. The upsurge overbearing "Uber-Patriotism" with charges of treachery and sabotage following the 9/11 attacks pushed many in the Left even to lend their support for the War in Iraq regardless of political ramification and insubstantial evidence. Why? I'd say, largely out of concern for an upcoming election cycle and securing votes. The Far Left, however, picked up on the same Nationalist sentiment with equal fervor in Bushs second term when pushing for an end to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. However, they are more concerned with the promotion of the State as a mediator in global cooperation and domestic issues as a means to ensure Liberty for larger segments of the individuals and promote a stronger America.

(Albeit, I don't think Bush's "I'm the decider" yabber was to be considered fascist such as was taken as so many did. I tend to think of it more as a Freudian slip where he reveals an inner-doubt as to whether or not he's being used by those in his Administration for their own purposes. Bush was a "Gut Feeler", and faith based thinker - which lends itself to being manipulated)

Many people contend that Patriotism and Nationalism are synonymous. Nationalism tends to be centered around cultures and states, whereas Patriotism can encompass both those - yet neither, in favor of a sentimental attachment to geographical location. One can love the country, yet find fault with the Government. One can love the American Culture, past or present, yet hold no sentiment for the land or condone the Government. What then, becomes the definition between the two? In my view, Nationalism is what results when one allows the divorce of Reason from their Patriotism.

There is a fine line between the two, and many may not realize they have crossed it until it's a matter of retrospect. Nationalism, because of it's tendency towards more extremist positions, plays a key role in the promotion of xenophobia and genocide. While viewing some of the afore-linked websites, I noticed a lot of extremely similar language, topics, and criticisms on the more racially charged sites as there are in the Town Hall/Conspiracy forums. Those folks are no stranger to Conspiracy Theories. As an occasional or extended "out-group", it's hard to understand why so many people can think so contrary to what you believe as right. A perceptual bias reinforced by those you surround yourself with in your community and home - and especially in the days of the internet - can falsely lead to a perception that a majority of the people support your views. Why then is the world so contrary to everything you know?

Conspiracy. The idea that your mindset is correct, and anyone who disagrees are just "sheep", "cowardly", or "stupid". Or worse. This is the reason why cults isolate their prospective admissions from all non-cult interaction - and why the first step in extracting someone from a cult is immersion back into society. The direct exploitation of a feature we already do to ourselves.

I am NOT attempting to characterize Conspiracy Theorists as racist in any way as a whole. What I am, however, suggesting that there are strong racially and politically based ideologies which are pervasive throughout the community who are using the protests to push their ideals. Of course, they have every right to be there, as citizens concerned about similar issues found wherein ideologies overlap, but do not let your patriotism exceed the bounds of your reason. Otherwise, in retrospect, you may find you were standing for something else quite contrary to that which you thought you stood for. I suspect that which has already occurred in some people.

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

Are you forgetting that people were so sick of the greed and corruption within the Christian conservative party that they voted them out. I'm not saying Obama is doing any better.

Do you want real change or do you want the Christian conservatives back? If you want real change, instead of talking like this ->

"Then they played the "race card." Then it was a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Now, they play the "victim-card."

You could point out the truth... That both parties need to be replaced. Playing left wing, right wing games isn't going to get us a better future for our children, it'll continue to keep us trading one groups sleazy, stinking trash for another groups sleazy, stinking trash.

What about talking a third party? Just a thought...

posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by silo13

I agree with your sentiment to some extent, but, I can't agree with the quote above. And what about the *Constitutional Free Zones*.

Thank you for making such a clear statement. Obama and the democrats are bought and paid for by the corporations and bankers, just like the republicans are. Farmers, fighting for their lives have known this for several years.

Clinton's sellout of food safety to corporate control: HACCP

The Cover-ups by the USDA Montana meatpacker John Munsell's against-the-odds struggle for improved food safety.

The history of corporate control of domestic policy History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job

After years researching and fighting the corporate take over of the food supply, I can smell a rat a mile away and the Health Care bill, that MAKES you pay for insurance, while reducing the level of care stinks as does the bailouts and Cap and trade.

Look real close and under all the great sounding stuff you will find a very sharp hook.

Sancho mentioned his brother works for the EPA. His instructions are to ignore EXXON and MOBILE and put the Mom & Pop operations out of business. The food Safety bills do the same thing they regulate anyone growing or storing food out of business. EVEN HOME GARDENS!!! (google commerce clause, supreme court ruling, wheat farmer) HACCP wiped out most of the independent slaughter houses. There are only three big packing houses left. in the USA, farmers just recently fought the buyout of the industry by Brazil's Batista family.

Control the food , Control the people - Kissinger

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Traffic

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by Traffic
Obama would not be president today if it wasn't for his outrageously strong support from young voters and promise of change change change.

If it were the opposite, McCain would be the winner.
That wouldn't make McCain Hitler either.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by lee anoma]

Of course it would, if John McCain was the president there would be claims and parallels between him and Hitler as well.


Because he won?

I personally don't see how such parallels could rationally be drawn.
I am seriously wondering if people really know anything about Nazi Germany, Hitler or fascism.

Mobilizing the youth to vote in large numbers doesn't make you a genocidal monster and the winner of any political election isn't Hitler by default because they technically had more support than the loser.

It makes absolutely no sense.

- Lee

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in