ACLU Challenges Religious School Assembly in Maine »« Those D-List Conservative Celebrities

More Hitler Comparisons

I’ve long said that, as bad as some of our federal legislators are, the dumbest, most ignorant and most ridiculous can be found in state legislatures. I’ve had lots of fun mocking Warren Chisum, Gerald Allen, Chris Buttars and Sally Kern. Arizona state Rep. Brenda Barton now seeks to join their ranks. I’ll be happy to oblige. She tweeted:

Someone is paying the National Park Service thugs overtime for their efforts to carry out the order of De Fuhrer…where are our Constitutional Sheriffs who can revoke the Park Service Rangers authority to arrest??? Do we have any Sheriffs with a pair?

Randomly capitalized words? Check. Bad attempt at a Godwin that can’t even get the phrasing correct? Check. Ignorantly claiming that county sheriffs can prevent federal officials from doing their jobs? Check. Yep, it’s a wingnut. And of course, when called out for the Hitler reference she doubles down on the stupid:

“He’s dictating beyond his authority,” she explained, “It’s not just the death camps. [Hitler] started in the communities, with national health care and gun control. You better read your history. Germany started with national health care and gun control before any of that other stuff happened. And Hitler was elected by a majority of people.”

Wrong on almost everything. National health care in Germany was instituted by Bismarck before Hitler was even born. Gun control in Germany was passed during the Weimar Republic before Hitler took power. And no, Hitler was not elected by a majority of the people. He was appointed chancellor in 1933 and had already seized all the power he needed before a plebiscite in 1934 officially merged the positions of chancellor and president. But please do keep telling everyone to read their history that you clearly know nothing about.

Comments

  1. Pieter B, FCD says

    I have read that she is now claiming that “De Fuhrer (sic)” wasn’t actually a Hitler reference, that it’s a generic term for a tyrannical dictator.

  2. John Pieret says

    Her “history” obviously comes from wingnut spam emails. I doubt she is capable of finding a history book in a library, much less read one with comprehension.

  3. busterggi says

    Yep, Obama is exactly like Hitler – remember how the Reichstag ran rampant over Hitler and refused to allow his policies to take effect? As a result no annexation of Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc occurred, no invasion of Poland, no WW II at all, not even a minor Holocaust – all because Hitler couldn’t get his version of Congress to cooperate.

    Exactly the same thing.

  4. says

    We’ve had national healthcare and gun control up here since….a long time ago. No swastikas or death camps yet, and the most authoritarian leader we’ve had in a while is probably the current one — an evangelical Christian whom Barton would likely find too wimpy and liberal for her tastes. Never mind history — these morons can’t even look around at the world *today* and reality-check their ravings.

  5. Matt G says

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc, anybody? And these people are too lacking in self awareness to be ashamed.

  6. Jim says

    For what it’s the worth, the “Constitutional Sherriff” bit is fairly common in those branches of the sovereign citizen movement that believe that no level of government above the county has authority over the individual.

  7. Larry says

    What an under-educated lout is she. She obviously hasn’t learned English grammar, spelling, world history, or civics.

    In other words, a typical teabagger.

  8. John Pieret says

    badgersdaughter @ 7:

    I might be new to this, but is she using Hitler as an example of rampant socialism?

    Well, Nazi means National Socialism party doesn’t it? That’s enough for the likes of her.

  9. says

    I was going to try to defend the capitalization because some of it makes sense. They want things like “De Fuhrer” to stick with the reader and capitals provide EMPHASIS. But there are way too many things capitalized that don’t make sense. These people risk hyperstimulating their readers to capitalization and rendering them insensitive. Soon it will all be caps and as we all know “CapsLock is cruise control for cool.”

  10. says

    Germany started with national health care and gun control before any of that other stuff happened.

    They also built roads, educated children, and grew wheat. All signs of the coming Holocaust.

  11. says

    I might be new to this, but is she using Hitler as an example of rampant socialism?

    You must be new to this. It’s a matter of settled history in Wingnuttia that Hitler was a left-wing liberal, and all the “liberal” things he did like gun control or health care led inexorably to the Holocaust, because logic.

    No, I am not making this up.

  12. eric says

    The state of Arizona seems to be on a mission to make comedians change all their Louisiana jokes.

  13. says

    Actually, under Hitler gun rules were liberalized so that any adult could own a rifle or shotgun* and the number of people allowed to own pistols was increased.
    But, hey, if you’re gonna go full wingnut** why get even one thing right? It’s not as if her audience would even realize it’s all bullshit, and even if pointed to proof they would still deny it.

    * Excepting those with names ending in “stein” and “berg” and etc.
    ** You went full wingnut, man. Never go full wingnut.

  14. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    And no, Hitler was not elected by a majority of the people. He was appointed chancellor in 1933 and had already seized all the power he needed before a plebiscite in 1934 officially merged the positions of chancellor and president.

    In 1932 a vote was held that effectively determined Adolph Hitler’s support amongst German voters. It was actually vote on Hitler’s foreign policy initiative; but the Germans knew it was more a vote on whether to support Hitler or not. There were 45.1 million qualified voters at the time; 96.5% turned-out and voted. Of those slightly more than 95.1% voted for Hitler’s proposed foreign policy, while the rest voted no. [1]

    The Nazi party did make some not so vague threats against those opposing Hitler. But also during this time most Germans were denying the reality of what the Nazis self-evidently were, and where the Nazi’s worst behavior beyond the then-standard-issue bigotry of German Christians was yet to come. The German-Americans I grew up with around react to this reality in two ways:
    1) Deny what Hitler did, especially towards those he persecuted that weren’t Jews, e.g., communists and homosexuals.
    2) More commonly, claim they and the people who share their religious beliefs were the few who never bought-in to Naziism. All while demonstrating the very fears, hatred, and dogmatic approach to religion and religion within which Naziism rose. This is mindful of Glenn Beck claiming MLK Jr’s legacy.

    1] Pg. 177 of Erik Larson’s, “In the Garden of the Beasts”, First Paperback Edition.

  15. Michael Heath says

    I should have pointed out that to read the cite, you can go to Amazon’s, “Look inside the book” and type 96.5% in the search box.

  16. vmanis1 says

    Hitler was never the choice of a majority of Germans. When he ran for president against Hindenberg in 1932, he got 36.8% of the vote. William Shirer, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich has a table showing that the Nazi share of the vote consistently declined throughout 1932 (there were a lot of elections that year). Hitler’s rise to power came because there was literally no other candidate for Chancellor, rather than from any groundswell of public support. Of course, in relatively short order after his accession, the Reichstag was burned down, and then shortly thereafter, the Nazis got 43.91% of the vote, in an election in which they advertised the hell out of the other parties, and used their various paramilitaries to intimidate voters (see, Republican Party, efforts to eliminate voter fraud). They only clung to power because of the smaller right-wing parties, which supported the Nazis, and for their kind efforts were promptly eliminated.

  17. Michael Heath says

    vmanis1,

    Your first link is broken.

    Your second link points to an election in 1933 where the Nazis had already accumulated enough to power to suppress their primary political opponents on the left. A lot happened between late-1932 to late-1933. In that very election the Nazis also achieved a plurality with six parties running. And they also encountered a drop in voter turnout from the election I noted, from 95% to 76%.

  18. dan4 says

    @1: I guess “And Hitler was elected by a majority of people” wasn’t actually a Hitler reference, either.

  19. vmanis1 says

    Michael Heath:

    Sorry about that first link, I was in a hurry, and must have messed it up. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932.

    You seem to have missed my point about the 1933 March election. With all the advertising, vote-rigging, and outright bullying they did, the Nazis were unable to achieve a majority. Fact, in the last even semi-free election in which one could vote Nazi, more voted against than for.

  20. Nick Gotts says

    In 1932 a vote was held that effectively determined Adolph Hitler’s support amongst German voters. – Michael Heath@17

    It was on 12th November 1933, not in 1932 (i.e. after the Nazis came to power, not before), and Hitler’s first name was Adolf, not Adolph.

Leave a Reply