Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany?

In Germany's 1932 presidential election, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Paul von Hindenburg, Adolf Hitler, and two minor candidates-- Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg.

Hindenburg won with over 55% of the vote; Hitler finished a distant second with 37%.

Thaelman & Duesterburg may have gone on to form a law firm (but history has been remiss in documenting this).

Nevertheless, in 1933, Hitler was constitutionally chosen by von Hindenburg to be Chancellor of Germany-- a country that in the early 1930's, was still a democratic nation.

But hundreds of times throughout the centuries, famous dictators -- originally chosen in free elections-- would then usurp their authority by becoming tyrants.

Take for example, our good friend in Venezuela-- Hugo (the great) Chavez:

Chavez had support from two thirds of the population, and was elected by a 66-33% margin.

Shortly after winning election, Mr Chávez announced that he would not renew the license of one of the country's oldest broadcasters, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).

Next, ol' Hugo decided he'd take a 51% stake in Venezuela's oilfields. Plus, in his inaugural speech, Mr Chávez had said he wanted to change the country's constitution to expropriate control of its natural gas operations as well.

Then a "committee" of his supporters (Venezuela's ACORN) campaigned for constitutional "reform" allowing Chavez to be elected indefinitely-- sound familiar?

How very democratic indeed...use Venezuela's constitution to transform it into an avowedly socialist country, with Mr. Chavez acting as defacto dictator.

In Venezuela today, checks and balances are gone. The National Assembly is a rubber-stamp legislative body on semi-permanent hiatus (vacation), and Chavez's cronies dominate the courts.

The comparisons to Chavez (and even Hitler) abound:

-Obama won the presidency in a free democratic election

-Obama then proceeds to nationalize the banks and auto companies

-Obama forms "Organizing for America"-- a "volunteer group" similar to Hitler's Brownshirts

Like his idol Hugo, there is Obama's backdoor approach to destroying media opposition (conservative talk radio), by regulating and breaking up the station franchise owners.

Then, we have Obama's list of priorities, which are little more than veiled socialsm:

1) Obama’s $878 billion anti-stimulus package-- designed to "kick in" by 2011-- is nothing but a democratic vote-buying scheme; it will create a plethora of Obama-dependent government programs, all pointing to his re-election in 2012.

2) Obama supports cap and trade; yet another UN-employment scheme to create more government dependents, who'll depend on their monthly Obama check to survive.

3) Obama's card check revival is nothing more than another fascist idea to create more union voters-- another voting bloc for his re-election

4) Obama's plan for illegal immigrant "amnesty" will lead to citizenship; and you guessed it...another huge democratic voting bloc.

5) Obama's plan for government-controlled healthcare-- the final coup d' etat: Unbeknownst to most citizens, these so-called 47 million uninsured "Americans" are vastly comprised of illegal aliens.

Once Obama rams national healthcare through, it will create a "fence -jumping" frenzy-- an unstoppable flow of aliens streaming across the southern border to get their "inalienable right" to free health care-- Obama's most devious scheme to date.

Unemployment and entitlement recipients already are (or soon will be) the fastest growing segment of the population. Mr. Obama's "coalition"-- those on welfare, illegal aliens, ACORN-provided dead voters, union members, and minorities, will prove difficult to defeat.

And with ACORN running interference for him in our so-called "democratic" elections, Obama is destined to achieve his edifice of power all "legal and proper."

On Jan 16, 2009 --completely ignored by the media-- came this jaw-dropper: U.S Representative, Jose Serrano, (D- New York) introduced HR 5-- a resolution to abolish the 22nd Amendment, term limits on the Presidency.

But is it indeed, not strange that an obscure Congressman would put forth such a major proposal, in a nation where the majority of voters believe there SHOULD be term limits on elected office holders?

It all makes sense: Imagine if someone of a bigger profile had done this: It would certainly have been plastered all over the airwaves; but that's exactly what our sneaky anti-president did NOT want!

And surprise-surprise; apparently, Representative Serrano is good pals with meester Hugo Chavez himself, who, perhaps, not so oddly, also wants no ‘term limit’ on his presidential office.

Mr. Serrano's H.R.5 states the following: "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President."

H.R.5 is patterned after the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 

Obama is a student of the New Deal blueprint. His primary goal is to get re-elected-- not by bringing back prosperity, but by using political economics (vote-buying) to tie dependent-voting groups to him, just as Roosevelt had done in the 1930's.

The more power Obama can wrest from the private sector, the larger he'll be able to expand the federal bureaucracy; replicating what FDR did to win re-election for 4 terms-- creating a culture of government dependency.

Obama's "stimulus" will bolster 6 million voters who've recently lost jobs. Plus Obama can extend his political influence over the lives of all other dependents-- a group that could easily approach 45% of the population by 2012.

Thus, if Mr. Obama can cobble enough votes together in the same fashion as Roosevelt, he'll easily win re-election in 2012 with a 51% majority (or better).

Then, with Serrano's resolution in committee, Obama now has all his "men" on the chessboard:

If Serrano's resolution is passed by say, 2015, what  would stand in Obama's way of further consolidating his power, and  becoming a virtual dictator- possibly for life?

Let's do some projections:

After Barack Obama gets elected to a second term, he could easily grant all immigrants the VOTE, arguing, "the privilege of enfranchisement supersedes any and all other individual rights."

By that time, the Obama "Organizing for America" political thugs will have grown into a well paid, para-military, leftist wing of enthusiastic supporters.

The unions will have expanded rapidly. And fully 60% of the population could become dependent on government entitlements.

Obama now convinces his growing majority that..."a leader so vital to America's march toward social utopia, should not be faced with time constraints"... and... "the Constitution shall be amended to read...'Any sitting president serving the common will of the people, could continue in such service until the people no longer willed it-- or serve as president for life..."

Then Obama leads the country into an even deeper depression, which assures his being viewed (like Roosevelt) as a "national necessity."
 

The theory behind the 22nd Amendment is that modern day presidents could exercise too much power and authority, to be allowed access to it for very long-- lest they become despots.

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson warned that presidents, not bound by term limits, could use their popularity and power to become kings.

Jefferson wrote: “If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.”

We must come to understand that Obama sides with Communists who attempt to overthrow their country's constitution. Repealing the 22nd amendment should be considered a near act of war against the American people by their very own government-- and specifically-- the Obama administration.

We must realize this is happening NOW, and Obama WILL eventually attempt to become a dictator.