However do you really believe that Obama is motivated by something other than to be reelected to a 2nd term? Or put another way, do you think that Obama is so principled (even though you believe that his principles are of a communistic nature) that he would be willing to sacrifice his own benefit to follow his principles?
This, as i see, it, is the crux of your argument, here. I would agree with this, on the whole, except for two words:
Hitler was a politician with his own set of principles. He was charismatic, as Obama is, used the economy to great effect, as Obama has, and was motivated by much, much more than simply being re-elected. He realized long before that he wasn't going to have to worry about it, anyway. Obama is an idealogue, and is proving that out by choosing fellow idelogues for positions of power in his administration. He writes convoluted and vague legislation that is a nearly hundred times longer than the average bill, and gives the presssured legislatorsonly a couple days to read it, if they actually do, anyway.
Fidel Castro led a popular revolution against an unpopular dictatorship, then declared his own, revolutionary government to be a communist dictatorship. Hugo Chavez has emerged as another, similar example. Ho Chi Minh; kind of a stretch, but he fits in here.
Isn't all this pretty much, by the way, how your side says Bush caused himself to be elected and re-elected? But now that it's your guy in there, well, he'd NEVER do anything untoward; anything unconstitutional. Well, another word for you: "czars".
From "American Thinker":
"Congress has the right and the duty to review, confirm, or reject the chief officer of the federal executive and legislative branches (except, of course, for the president and vice president.) And Congress has the right and the duty to remove any important federal officer who is corrupt or exceeds the powers of his office. The duty of Congress to remove corrupt principal officers of the executive and judicial branches is often simply forgotten. If the Secretary of the Treasury, for example, engages in some stinky behavior, he usually simply resigns. But whether he does -- indeed, even if he does -- the House can impeach him and the Senate can convict him.
That is a deliberate check the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress over the Executive Branch. But could the House impeach or how could the Senate convict an Obama commissar, who had never been confirmed by the Senate and who held a position not created by Congress? Cabinet secretaries and heads of agencies are accountable both to the president and to Congress. These commissars, on the other hand, could not be impeached and removed from office because they do not, formally, hold an office.
This is very dangerous. The leader, in this case Obama, becomes more than the office itself. The structure of government morphs into the structure of the party. Stalin, in large measure, did not wield his awful power as the head of the Soviet Union or chief of the Soviet government: he did, in fact, often brag that he was simply a member of the Communist Party, an ordinary Soviet citizen. Hitler did combine the offices of Chancellor and President, but his real power was as leader of the Nazi Party, not an official of the German government.
When separate parts of government blend together, when rules of procedure are simply bypassed, when the distinction between political parties operating within government are transformed into political parties (through a system of commissars) operating as the government, then any nation with established, stable, and republican institutions has entered a very deadly phase.
The patterns are already ominously clear. Legislators, quite literally, vote for legislation not yet written (which rather sounds like Hitler's Enabling Act.) Judicial nominees make only the vaguest pretense of adhering to ideals of impartial administration of justice (Hispanic Justice and Aryan Justice may sound different to some people, but they are not.) Now commissars are replacing cabinet secretaries -- and we should stop letting Obama define the changes. He is not appointing dozens of "czars." He is creating a party-state system of political commissars."
How many people actually vote for, or support, a "dictator"? A person whom they know and truly believe, from the get-go, is going to brutally oppress and murder? How many politicians who end up as dictators actually run on the Political/Cultural Tyranny platform? Obama is no Hitler, to be sure, but he's in the same vein. Bush may have tap-danced around the Constitution a little, but Obama is quietly subverting in ways Bush never even, in eight years, attempted. And besides, Bush had the War on Terror banner to hold up.
Obama's weakening our position there, however, in trying to make nice with hateful savages and fanatical killers. What's his excuse, then?