



I had never encountered Mike Savage before about a month ago, and I have to say, I really wish I hadn't to this day.





In an article on Wing Nut Daily, he goes to town on the Obama administration comparing it to the dictatorships of the Duvaliers in Haiti and Venezuala's Hugo Chavez . Some of the comments go further, comparisons being made to fascists Hitler and Mussolini (whilst confusingly also mentioning Che Guevera ).





Oh well, here is my response to his claims.

“We’re watching a dictatorship emerging now where he is literally coming out of his chrysalis and showing his true nature,” Savage told his listeners last night.

Referring to Haiti’s family of dictators, Savage said that Obama is a “Junior Doc Duvalier” but soon will become a “Papa Doc,” with “one unconstitutional move at a time with virtually no opposition.”





On that note, let us compare Obama with ' The Duvalier comparison is risible. Unlike ' Papa Doc ', there is no suggestion of constitutional changes like reducing Congress to a unicameral body; there is no evidence to suggest he wishes to serve more than the constitutionally permitted two terms; voter fraud is routinely carried out by the GOP as opposed to the Democrats; JFK (D) was was particularly disturbed by Duvalier's repressive and authoritarian rule; there is no suggestion that he has embezzled funds from the government; Obama has not used political murder and expulsion to suppress his opponents, and not even a hint that he wishes his son to inherit the presidency.On that note, let us compare Obama with ' Baby Doc '. Obama has not made millions from involvement in the drug trade and from selling body parts from dead Americans; has never been charged with corruption; has not suggested that no political opposition is an option, nor has he been charged with corruption, theft, and misappropriation of funds committed during his presidency.

“This is, of course, how power is grabbed, day after day,” he said.





Meh. I could go on, but what is the point. To makes comparisons between these dictators and what is, in effect, a

As for comparisons with Chavez... The Obama administration has not seen the implementation of a new constitution or the nationalisation of several key industries (that was done during the Bush administration); Obama has never led a coup d'etat; has never been imprisoned; has never proclaimed an adherence to socialism; is not a vocal critic of neoliberalism and capitalism; has not aligned with the socialist governments of Fidel and then Raúl Castro in Cuba, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua; did not set up trade associations with neighbouring countries (like the first Bush administration did with NAFTA); has not served in the military; does not have the support of communists; has not so much as suggested raising the presidential term; has not suggested reducing Congress from bicameral to unicameral (like 'Papa Doc'); has not increased the military spending (but calls for it to be reduced from the relatively high level of 4.3% of GDP as opposed to Venezuela's 1.3% )...Meh. I could go on, but what is the point. To makes comparisons between these dictators and what is, in effect, a lame-duck president within a democratic system that has remained unchanged during his administration is not just a misrepresentation; it is demonstrably false and without foundation.

If Obama is reelected, Savage said, “eliminating the Second Amendment” will follow.

“If they can gut the military, and not a peep comes out of the media, why couldn’t he seize your guns?”

Obama, Savage said, “is getting away with every dream of the radical left, one step at a time.”

I will grant you that, if re-elected, the Second Amendment may well be abolished - or at least altered - although he has come out in support of the Second Amendment , It should be noted, however, each of the Republican candidates [see below for notes] suggest their own constitutional reforms. The difference being that second amendment is out of date in a modern society, and the first and fourteenth amendments are not. Gun control is patently necessary in the States, but the rights of citizens to privacy and freedom of conscience are not. Mock Obama for his wish to change the Constitution if you will, but be prepared for a backlash when your preferred candidate is called out on it.





On Wednesday, against the position of his own Justice Department, Obama made four “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in a declared recess. He filled three spots on the National Labor Relations Board and appointed former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an intrusive federal agency established last year by the Dodd-Frank law. Filling out government bodies with people you trust to carry out your democratically endorsed mandate is not just common amongst administrations, it should be expected. Surely you are not suggesting that should your candidate become democratically elected, that they shouldn't do the same?



From the comments:

I find it hilarious (if not a little disturbing) to read how 'socialist' Obama is comparable to fascists Mussolini and Hitler. If it were true, of course, I would also be concerned. However, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that such a comparison has any warrant whatsoever.



I am beginning to see a level of hypocrisy here that is becoming all too familiar in conservative spheres. Why don't they see it too?





Notes:









[Gingrich]...Instead of recognising SCOTUS as the highest authority on law, Gingrich wishes to 'establish' God as the highest authority. This would take Constitutional reform and the removal of Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

- The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

This power grab by the Court is a modern phenomenon and a dramatic break in American history. The danger is that the courts will move us from a self-understanding that we are one nation “under God”, to a nation under the rule of the state, where rights are accorded to individuals not by our Creator, but by those in power ruling over them. History is replete with examples of this failed model of might-makes-right--Nazism, fascism, communism--and their disastrous consequences.

[Santorum]... Santorum has stated that he does not believe a " right to privacy " is part of the Constitution; he has been critical of the Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which held that the Constitution guaranteed that right, and overturned a law prohibiting the sale and use of contraceptives to married couples ( source ).



