Part II of Democrats of 2007 USA = National Socialists of 1934 Germany?

In the first article of this series, I was trying to introduce you, the reader, to the parallels that I see between the Democratic Party of the 2000s in the United States of America and the path the National Socialists took in 1930s Germany. That article focused primarily on the potential troubles opponents of Hillary Clinton inside the party may face and the parallels with the National Socialists in Germany during the early years of Hitler's power in Germany. If you know anything about the subject, you know that little more than a year after taking power Hitler launched a purge of the Nazi Party. Hillary Clinton, in my almost NEVER to be humble opinion, is as capable of such a move as Hitler. I will now proceed to parallel Hillary Clinton with Adolf Hitler in other ways.

First, let us consider Hillary Clinton's defense of Partial-birth Abortion, a procedure that even many pro-choice *or, pro-abortion if you prefer* voters are opposed to. To start, I bring up a debate between Hillary Clinton, junior Senator from New York, and Rick Santorum, the then-junior Senator from Pennsylvania. In this, Hillary Clinton speaks on why the partial-birth abortion ban should be defeated. Her comments center on the charts used by Sen. Santorum to depict the procedure, as stated in Vast Right Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton by Amanda Carpenter:

"Clinton: I am also concerned about some of the visual aids used by some of my colleagues. They are as deceptive as they are heartbreaking... They show a perfectly formed fetus... Where are the swollen heads... fetuses with vital organs growing outside the body? ... Why would we choose not to demonstrate... women who come with medical diagnoses that the brain in the head is so swollen that the fetus, your baby, is basically brain-dead?

Santorum: ...There may be - and there are -- a small number of cases in the late term... where a child in the womb has a fetal abnormality and may not live. ...But frankly, I don't see the difference in my mind - and I'm not too sure the public does [either] - with respect to that being any less of a child. It is still a child, is it not? Maybe it is a child that is not going to live long, but do we consider-

Clinton: Will the Senator yield?"[1]

This is not only a fundamental truth she is denying, but the comments already stated in this debate by Hillary Clinton demonstrate a marked lack of respect for life, particularly of "less than perfect" babies. Hitler and the Nazis used this kind of argument to begin a "euthanasia" program. This was for deformed, mentally ill, or congenitally sick infants, children, and even adults.

She goes on, later in the debate, to ask:

"Clinton: Does the Senator's legislation (partial-birth abortion ban) make exceptions for ...life-threatening abnormalities (life-threatening to the baby) or babies in such serious physical condition that they will not live outside the womb.

Santorum: No, if-

Clinton: That is the point.

Santorum: ...No, I do not have an exception... that says "If you are perfect, this cannot happen to you; but if you are not perfect, yes, this can occur.

Clinton: ...The very fact that the senator from Pennsylvania does not have such a distinction... demonstrates clearly a fallacy in this approach ...government making such tremendously painful and personal and intimate decisions."[2]

One has to wonder, of course, if Clinton's argument doesn't read exactly like something out of some National Socialist Schutzstaffel (SS) manual on obstetrics and pre-natal care. To say that a child in the womb who has such abnormalities should be allowed to be terminated, even if there is no guarantee that the child will die outside the womb, smacks of eugenics in its most horrific form. It may not be what she means, but it sure worries me.

However, this isn't the only area in which Hillary Clinton shows a frightening parallel to Adolf Hitler. Another striking parallel is in the area of children and the state. Here, Hillary Clinton's view on the family and children shines through. She assisted in the writing of the 1977 report by the Carnegie Council on Children called All Our Children. In it, she and others claim that it would be a "larger village of teachers, pediatricians, and social workers who would socialize the task of raising, supporting, and nurturing children,"[3] and not the traditional family. The Council (Carnegie Council on Children), in the aforementioned report, also proposed the development of "public advocates" to arbitrate disputes between parents and their children, on the children's behalf of course.[4] This would act to make children and their raising not the province of the parents, but of the state. That is precisely what children became in Hitler's Germany.

In one chapter of the aforementioned report, as reported in The Case Against Hillary Clinton by Peggy Noonan: "She (Hillary Clinton) charges that ' state agencies and courts... rely on 'middle class values' to judge a family's child-rearing practices. This ...is unfortunate. Instead, decisions to intervene should be entrusted to, 'boards... representing identifiable constituencies - racial, religious, ethnic, geographical - ...to decide when parental rights over a child should be terminated."[5]

Once again, the state decides if one is raising their children properly. If this weren't enough, Noonan points out that Hillary Clinton, in working on aforementioned Carnegie Council report, proposes in the chapter entitled Protection of Children's Rights, that: "It has become necessary... to make piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have."[6]

I wonder who determines what privileges society wants children having? More than likely, it would be Hillary and her ilk.

So, why go through all this to separate parents from the raising of children? Well, if the parents aren't allowed to raise their children, guess who gets to do it? That's right, the state. Of course, this kind of thinking is common to Communist and Fascist regimes, but none took it to such a high art as the Nazis in Germany. When I see all that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats seem to be pushing for in regards to children, I cannot help but see a parallel with the Nazis in this respect.

[1]The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton, by Amanda B. Carpenter, 2006. pp. 98-99.

[2] Ibid., pp. 100-101.

[3]Motherhood versus Feminism: A fight for the Nuclear Family in the Twenty-First Century, Raleigh Tavern Philosophical Society, 2001. http://www.raleightavern.org/Rlghtvrn.htm.

[4] Ibid.

[5]The Case Against Hillary Clinton, by Peggy Noonan. 2000. p 150.

[6] Ibid., p. 154.