Watching the Mueller, Comey, Strzok, Page et al. subversion saga as it grinds through the gears of a now-dubious federal justice system brings up some interesting psychological, ethical, and legal considerations. What happens to a government, a nation, when highly-placed law enforcement officials are so politically myopic, so zealous in their partisan ideology that they’ve convinced themselves they are “saving” the country, willing to violate policy, their oaths, and the law to achieve their goals? Nothing good, that’s for sure.
What are we to think of government officials who allegedly engaged in illegal behavior to help a presidential candidate avoid prosecution for suspected serious crimes so she could win the presidency? And further, what if, simultaneously, these same people also allegedly attempted to prevent another presidential candidate from winning the presidency? And, even worse, once elected, what if these officials conspired to remove him from the office to which the American people elected him?
Can you imagine feeling so strongly for or against particular candidates that you’re willing to ignore your oath to the Constitution, breach your ethics, and even commit crimes to assist with or prevent a person from assuming the presidency? And further, you don’t care if you damage the American election process by making the system appear broadly tainted by accusations of Russian “hacking” and “collusion” that affected the vote, even using fake evidence, in an attempt to remove a president from office.
It’s a dangerous notion for a federal law enforcement official to harbor “she just has to win” sentiments for one candidate, and classifying the other as too much of “a loathsome human” to succeed—all because we say so, and we’re in a position to do something about it. Americans cannot tolerate this delusional attitude and corrupt behavior if we wish to remain a free republic.
Leftists like these have gone as far as comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. From their texts, I’d guess Strzok and Page, and the rest of them probably, agree.
How dangerous is the left’s tortured conflation of an occasionally crude but benign and effective Republican president with a charismatic but evil and destructive Nazi dictator? The left would have you wonder: If you’d been alive in 1932 Germany, would you have committed crimes to keep Hitler from being elected leader of Germany?
I think most of us, mired in presentism, would say yes. Because we know the whole horrific story now. It’s hard to think about the earlier Hitler the voters elected in 1933 compared with what the Nazi dictator became. But this is what the left, people like Strzok and Page, want you to think when you think about President Trump. They know he’s not a genocidal dictator. They want you to think, not yet. They want you to believe, if he’s not stopped, Trump will be as bad as Hitler.
However, we have the clarity of historical hindsight. In 1932, when Hitler ran to become the leader of Germany, his genocidal madness was still theory. He hadn’t put his mass murder plans into practice yet. He wasn’t yet the tyrannical despot we learned about after WWII. There were obvious signs of Hitler’s rising wickedness, but no one has to conflate or extrapolate what he said or later did when describing his decades-long ascent to and then assuming the throne of evil.
He disarmed the population, heavily regulated industry—essentially taking over the means of production—and then began dividing Germans against each other by marginalizing certain groups by religion, politics, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. President Trump isn’t doing this, but the comparisons to the Nazi dictator persist.
In 1921, the Nazi Party named Hitler their Führer, in part due to his gift for oration and the caustic charisma with which he captivated large crowds of supporters. This cult of personality is yet another similarity with which critics attempt to slime Trump. Shhhh, don’t tell anyone, but Hitler didn’t drink alcohol or smoke tobacco either!
That Trump is nothing like Hitler where it matters doesn’t concern his haters. Leftists find it useful to conflate Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler, and they’ll keep doing it. No reasonable person believes the two men are even remotely similar in any practical way. But when the left equates Trump to the pre-Holocaust, popularly-elected chancellor of Germany before the madman’s purges, mass murders, and other heinous crimes against humanity, they feel they are making a poignant and powerful observation. In reality, the comparison is feeble and lazy.
Well, that’s what the left does. They compare Trump to Hitler by connecting the president to Hitler’s potential evil. They travel back to Hitler’s early days. They extrapolate Hitler the “artist” becoming a tyrant to Trump the “businessman” following a similar path. When advocating for stopping President Trump, they say things like, “If only someone could have stopped Hitler before he was powerful enough to inflict his horrors on Europe and the world.”
Then they apply that “logic” to their “resist” movement meant to remove a president from office—by impeachment or whatever works. They believe if their side lost the election, something must have gone wrong, so they invalidate the results in their minds to justify their anti-Trump actions. These political fanatics delude themselves into believing they are stopping another “Hitler” before he can inflict his horrors on America and the world.
In an article appearing in thehill.com, Allan Richarz wrote, “But overwrought comparisons to the Nazis are both historically illiterate and an extreme strategic misstep. The president’s critics have crossed a rhetorical line from which there can be no turning back.” This hits the proverbial nail on its clichéd head.
Where does the left go after they pull the Nazi pin and toss the Hitler grenade into the political conversation? There’s nothing worse. Well, unless they want to go all biblical and compare President Trump to Satan. I know…some already have. But comparisons to Adolf Hitler, a real-life historical figure, are much more visceral and thus objectively relatable to all people.
When comparing Trump to Hitler, calling the president and his supporters racist white nationalists, his opponents will exaggerate the worst examples of the president’s frenetic rhetoric and unique speaking style. But, in doing so, they must omit important facts and contexts for the statements to have their desired negative effects.
For example, I stop listening the minute someone repeats the mantra, “Trump called Mexicans rapists, murderers, and thieves.” No, he did not. It’s clear he didn’t, especially if you take the time to consider the actual words President Trump used while also acknowledging his speaking manner.
Even though the president was referring to Mexican illegal-alien criminals, his opponents want you to believe he meant all Mexican immigrants—or even all Mexicans. So, it’s become routine for Trump critics, including the mainstream media, to lie about what the president says and does, either explicitly or by omitting facts and context.
The other day, during a rally, President Trump gave an apt example of “fake news” from his recent trip to Europe. In England, Trump arrived 15 minutes early to meet with Queen Elizabeth II. It was the queen who arrived late. In fact, the president joked that he didn’t mind waiting for her because, well, “she’s the queen.”
As we’ve come to expect, the media reported President Trump was late for his visit with the queen. After the meeting went longer than scheduled, the media reported he’d overstayed his welcome. So, the president was late, and he stayed too long.
From the queen’s smiles during the meeting, it appeared Her Majesty and the president got along well. Still, from media reports, you’d swear Trump spit in the queen’s face and surreptitiously tripped her while she was reviewing her guard.
And then the media gave him flack for “walking in front of the queen, blocking her from camera view” when reviewing her troops. This form of news “reporting” is not unusual. Remember the kerfuffle over Trump’s supposed eviction of an MLK bust from the Oval Office? It never happened. As the president might say, “FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!”
Now, as I draw to a close, let me do my part, briefly, to convince the Republican Never-Trumpers and the Democrat-Socialist Leftist Resistance that Trump is no tyrant, certainly no Hitler—or, if he is, he isn’t a very good one.
I’ll choose one category historically related to becoming a dictator, since it relates to Hitler, and because I used to carry a gun for a living. Every political tyrant on earth, early in his reign, including Hitler, disarmed the population as a part of his despotism. Armed people are very hard to control because, if things get bad enough, they can shoot back.
Warriortimes.com lists some of the more prominent dictators who’d disarmed their people and the catastrophic results:
1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915–1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929–1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948–1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939–1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975–1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964–1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971–1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
Some may quibble with the numbers, but that these genocides took place is a matter of historical record.
Now, let me ask you this: If President Trump is a tyrant and he wants to rule America as a dictator, why does he fight so hard to preserve the right of all Americans, right, left, and middle, to keep and bear arms? Why is he such a strong NRA supporter? And why does he nominate for Supreme Court Justice people who strongly support the Second Amendment?
To lucid people everywhere, there are many reasons Donald Trump, though boorish and arrogant at times, is obviously not a tyrant, and he’s certainly no Adolf Hitler or even Benito Mussolini. But this support alone for people being armed is an empirical indication the man is no dictator and has no wish to rule America through oppression.
By the way, I feel slimed by stupidity just engaging in an argument against such stupidity. Then again, some logic, though it seems it shouldn’t have to be said, may be necessary for some people to wake up from their leftist-induced comas.
By this president’s words and actions, he has shown his commitment to maintaining an armed “militia” of American citizens prepared to defend their families, their homes, their communities, their country, and themselves.
And, come to think of it, he’s also the deregulation president. What evil dictator reduces and eliminates rather than increases and imposes regulations? As I alluded to above, if President Trump is a tyrant, he’s the worst tyrant ever. He needs to turn in his Tyrants Guild Union card. And, if he’s intent on ruling America through dictatorship, then assuring the country will maintain a less regulated, freer, and armed citizenry is the worst way to accomplish his goal.
