For those with a passing knowledge of history, it is clear that despite society’s claim to be advancing, a disturbing amount of history’s blunders have a way of repeating themselves. A parallel potential is available in our upcoming election amid the haunting memories of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s doomed appeasement of Hitler seventy-eight years ago.
Some of Hillary’s Criticisms of Donald Trump
He Depresses National Pride: Hillary Clinton cannot refute Donald Trump’s assessment of the negative impact the Democrats have had on the economic and social health of our nation over the last fifty years. So, she fabricates that Trump is trying to depress people as her campaign chairman John Podesta said: “Tonight, Donald Trump painted a dark picture of an America in decline.”1 She added last night in Cincinnati, “He has a dark and divisive vision for America that could tear our country apart.”2 Hillary sees herself as the beacon of hope and national unity to counter this.
She also takes issue with Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan by declaring, “America is already is great. But we are great because we are good, and we will respect each other.”3
[That’s true except for the unborn, when religious freedom clashes with the pagan morals of secular world, etc. But that’s for another article.]
The “1%” is Our Enemy: Despite the large fees and other concessions she has received from speaking to the world of Wall Street and others (see footnote #4), she claims to be on the side of the little guy in the financial world. Hillary Clinton pretends solidarity with the average American by declaring that our economy requires the “toppling” of the top 1% of earners because their real income (including hers as she likes to ignore) has risen dramatically unlike the rest of the stagnant economy.5
Give Hillary What She Wants and We’ll Be Safe: Her biggest push is that Trump is a threat to world peace. She feels he should not be trusted with the codes to our nuclear arsenal and, “He’s not just unprepared — he’s temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility… We cannot put the safety of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America… I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his attraction to tyrants… You know, there’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal, but it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.”6
In other words, give Hillary what she wants – the presidency – and the world will be stable and safer with the threat of major war eliminated.
What Does This Have to do With the 1930’s?
After World War I, the victorious Allies (of which the U.S. was a part of) wanted to ensure that the “war to end all wars” would never be repeated. Consequently, the penalties on the Axis powers (of which Germany was a member) were significant.
Restoring national pride and establishing a common enemy: Unfortunately, the severity of the surrender terms made it likely that a leader would rise to reinstate the Germans sense of national pride which had been severely bruised. Thus, it produced Adolph Hitler who attained the title of chancellor in 1933 and began his quest for multinational dominance. Needing a target to rally his people further, he blamed the Jews for Germany’s economic woes. At that time, the Jewish people which were about 0.75 per cent of the German population.7
In effect, Hitler made the Jews the “One Per Cent” villains of his time. Wall Street anyone?
Hitler’s Ego and Plan for Domination Cause Great Concern: Hitler began his quest for territory by cleverly pulling off an annexation of Austria through political pressure, then with troops.8 After that, he decided to look elsewhere to add natural resources to his control. He turned to the Sudetenland. It had become part of Czechoslovakia as a result of the World War I surrender agreement. Of its three million people, a high percentage was Germans. The conditions were ripe for trouble as a result of “the German nationalist, anti-Czech, anti-Semitic propaganda disseminated by the Sudeten German (or Nazi) Party during the mid-1930s.”9
Background of the Road to Appeasement, Simply: Give Hitler What He Wanted and We’d Be Safe
Therefore, “starting in 1938, the Nazi propaganda machine fabricated false stories of the three million ethnic Germans being oppressed in Czechoslovakia, and demanded to gain control of these lands.” Hitler decided, “”It is my unalterable decision to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near future.” But this would be more difficult as Czechoslovakia counted Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union as friends.
Because Hitler was aware of much appeasement sentiment among the leaders of Great Britain and France, he proceeded with pressure. In September 1938, “France, for example, went as far as demanding Czechoslovakia to cede the territory to Germany, otherwise France would not honor the mutual protection treaty that they had previously signed.” Here comes British leader Neville Chamberlain who convinced Hitler that a multi-national power convention be held to settle this.
Hitler got his way in that two Czech representatives were allowed in the building of the convention, but only in an adjacent room and were not permitted to take part. According to Wilhelm Keitel, [French leader Edouard] Daladier was adamant in doing what it takes to avoid war, saying “[w]e won’t tolerate war over this, the Czechs will just have to give way. We will simply have to force them to the cession.” The four decided the fate for Czechoslovakia by granting Germany Sudetenland.10
It Didn’t Work Then and It Won’t Now
History shows how badly appeasement works. The concentration camps had been in existence for six years11 already when, twelve months later, Germany invaded Poland and the worst world war began.
If we choose Hillary over Donald because of the fear he would shatter a fragile world peace, what are our chances for a better life?
Health Insurance: Let’s see, with Hillary we know we’ll have an acceleration of the health industry debacle known as Obamacare. It must be remembered that the poorly named “Affordable Health Care Act” was never the end game of Obama and the Left to begin with. The ultimate goal was a “single payer system” which means socialized medicine.
How can we believe this? Look at Colorado. The financial disaster caused by Obamacare (and which the President and his chief architect knew all along) has resulted in huge losses for insurance companies. Since pride discourages legislators from going back and replacing this feel-good idea, we have:
“Amendment 69 would establish Colorado Care, a single-payer government-run health insurer that would be the first of its kind in the country… Under the plan, private health insurance would likely cease to exist in the state. Instead a 21-member elected board would administer the coverage on behalf of the government.”
“It would cost more than $30 billion and it would be paid for with a 6.6 percent increase in employers’ payroll taxes and a 3.3 percent increase in employees’ payroll taxes.”12
So is this bad? This is total government control over one-sixth of the entire economy and the imposed priorities regarding what “health care” choices will be required. It includes abortion, contraceptives and abortifacients, gender “reassignment” (which ultimately does not solve the emotional problems causing the individual’s turmoil 13, 14) and human/ animal hybrid research (already in progress 15). It also forces citizens to pay for these morally reprehensible items and implements the rationing of medical services only for those deemed useful enough for society to receive them. In other words, a true war on human life from conception onward.
By the way, Hillary defends abortion all the way up to birth. This legal form of murder has accounted for more than 55 million deaths in the U.S., or about six times the number of Jews and Russian prisoners killed by Hitler.16
Freedom of Religion: We need to be reminded that Hillary has said
“…deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” 17
Peace in the World: There are many others serious concerns about the impact of an H. R. Clinton presidency, but this one must be addressed because it was mentioned in this article’s title! She paints the picture of Trump as one who is out-of-control and likely to blow up the world one way or another. Perhaps she doesn’t recognize what being assertive is – something the current administration is unfamiliar with (“red line” in the sand for Syria, caving in to Iran’s wants by not using the strength we had during the negotiations then giving them ransom money later, promising to help Ukraine and under-delivering 18, etc.). Regarding Hillary herself, there’s the inaction on Ambassador Stevens’ multiple requests for security in Benghazi then doing nothing as the four were killed while directives kept changing regarding our military’s attire which might upset the lawless nation.
Hillary Clinton’s proposals include irresponsible immigration from terrorist nations which will bring the war to our doorstep. With her Democratic platform in place, we will be able to choose between more frequent attacks overseas or at home. If that isn’t enough, there’s control of 20% of our uranium ending up in Russia’s hands while money from the Canadian company owners flowed to the Clinton Foundation. 19
Knowing all of this, why would we pull a Chamberlain and elect Hillary Clinton because she is trying to scare us into ignoring the real dangers she poses?
1 – “Clinton: Trump ‘painted a dark picture of America’,” by Ben Kamisar, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288834-clinton-trump-painted-a-dark-picture-of-america, 7/22/2016.
2 – “Hillary Clinton Hints of Civil War, Nuclear War if Donald Trump is Elected,” by Charlie Spiering, http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/01/hillary-clinton-hints-of-civil-war-nuclear-war-if-donald-trump-is-elected/, 11/1/2016.
3 – “Clinton blasts Trump: ‘We are great because we are good’,” by Dan Mangan, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/09/clinton-blasts-trump-we-are-great-because-we-are-good.html, 10/9/2016.
4 – “The speech in 2013 was one of three Clinton made on behalf of Goldman Sachs. According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made 8 speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis… According to the memo, Clinton requires travel by private jet, and even specifies that she prefers a Gulfstream 450 or larger. Her staff requires first class and business class tickets. And two members of her staff require up to three days on site to prepare, with all local – “with up to three separate rooms attached.” From “The truth about Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches,” by Drew Griffin, David Fitzpatrick and Curt Devine, http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/, 4/20/2016.
5 – ”Hillary Clinton called for ‘toppling’ the 1%,” by Colin Campbell, http://www.businessinsider.com/report-hillary-clinton-called-for-toppling-the-1-2015-4, 4/21/2015.
6 – “Hillary Clinton’s evisceration of Donald Trump,” by Stephen Collinson and Dan Merica, http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech/, 6/3/2016.
7 – “Germany: Jewish Population in 1933,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005276
8 – http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-annexes-austria
9 – https://www.britannica.com/place/Sudetenland
10 – “Munich Conference and the Annexation of Sudetenland,” by C. Peter Chen, http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=87
11 – “CONCENTRATION CAMPS, 1933–1939,” https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263
12 – “Coloradans to vote on ‘single payer’ health insurance proposal,” by Joe St. George, http://kdvr.com/2016/08/05/colorado-to-vote-on-single-payer-health-insurance-proposal/, updated 8/5/2016.
13 – “Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a ‘mental disorder’ that merits treatment, that sex change is ‘biologically impossible,’ and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder… he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically… Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”
From “Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’,” by Michael W. Chapman, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change, 6/2/2015.
14 – “And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”
“It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.” From “Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution,” by Dr. Paul McHugh, http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120, updated 5/13/2016.
15 – “NIH Plans To Lift Ban On Research Funds For Part-Human, Part-Animal Embryos,” by Rob Stein, http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/04/488387729/nih-plans-to-lift-ban-on-research-funds-for-part-human-part-animal-embryos, 8/4/2016.
16 – “The Holocaust death toll,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1481975/The-Holocaust-death-toll.html, 1/26/2005.
17 — “Hillary: ‘Deep-seated … religious beliefs’ have to be changed for abortion,” by Ed Morrissey, http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/hillary-deep-seated-religious-beliefs-have-to-be-changed-for-abortion/, 4/24/2015.
18 – “U.S. Hasn’t Kept Ukraine Aid Promises,” by Josh Rogin, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-02-05/u-s-hasn-t-kept-ukraine-aid-promises, 2/5/2015.
19 – “At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family… Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,Hillary Rodham Clinton…”
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million… And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock…”
“Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.´ — [note: Why? Weren’t the receipts sent to the Government Accounting Office like all good Secretary of States do?] From “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html, 4/23/2015,