Canadafreepress – Klaus Rohrich
A few months back Fox News’ Alan Colmes commented to the effect that anyone who sees a parallel between pre-WWII Germany and Obama’s America is in dire need of psychiatric help. Most people (and I think Alan Colmes in particular) don’t understand that Hitler’s rise to power came at the behest of German voters, who were swayed by the scapegoating and blaming of Germany’s problems on Jews and duplicitous Communists. Hitler’s rise to absolute power came about quite legally through a series of laws passed through the Reichstag, Germany’s then parliament. Ultimately those laws established the National Socialist (NAZI) party (note the word “socialist”) as the only legal political party in Germany by 1934.
Many writers today are loath to make a comparison to the rise of Hitler’s Power in comparison to the rise in Barack Obama’s power because they claim it is “extreme” or “trite.” Be that as it may, there are some definite parallels between the rise of Hitler and that of Obama. Both were rabble-rousers, both were socialists, both had extensive political support from voters as well as big businesses and yes, both were demagogues. In addition, both were also in perpetual campaign mode.
Oh yes, and both assumed increased dictatorial powers over time.
Now, I’m not one of those crazy conspiracy theorists who sits before my computer wearing a tin foil hat and worrying about black helicopters, but doesn’t it strike you as odd that all of a sudden the Attorney General of the United States claims that the President has the constitutional right to kill any American without due process of law within the borders of the United States? At least that’s how I interpret the statement Holder made in a letter to Senator Rand Paul, as quoted in the Washington Examiner.
“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” Holder wrote as a reply to Paul’s question about whether President Obama has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.
I’m happy to hear that there has been huge pushback in the United States Senate over this statement. What really surprises me is that there are actually writers on the Left who agree with Holder and believe Obama should have the power to whack anyone whom he believes to be an enemy of the state.
Of course such an action would be in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh amendments of the Constitution, as they guard against illegal searches and seizures, forbids punishment without due process of law and guarantees that the accused can face his accusers in open court, guarantees a speedy public trial and assures that trial by a jury of one’s peers, respectively.
How would a drone strike guarantee an “accused” of these rights? Would he get a text message on his cell phone prior to the strike? What about a trial? Would that be held in absentia? How would the accused be able to wage a vigorous defense against the charges, a right to which he or she is Constitutionally entitled? And under what circumstances could an accused appeal a conviction?
This Attorney General, Eric Holder, who believes that the president is legally entitled to off any American that he in his judgment believes is as enemy of the state, is the very same Eric Holder who refused to prosecute clear examples of voter intimidation and voter fraud on the part of the New Black Panther Party caught on camera in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election. Should someone with such little understanding or respect for the Constitution, which is the legal basis on which the United States exists, be allowed to hold the office of Attorney General, the country’s chief law enforcement officer?
Senate filibusters notwithstanding, there is no way this will end well unless someone has the courage and the forethought to initiate impeachment proceedings.