You Want to Talk About Nazis? So Be It.

There's something that's really been bothering me lately. It's this notion from the Left that everyone on the Right is crazy and "fear-mongering." There was an op-ed by Leonard Pitts about the use of the word "Nazi." His overriding point was that Nazis were terrible and killed people in horrific ways and when we call our politicians "Nazis" we are disrespecting those the Nazis tortured and killed.

What I think the Left (and Pitts) miss in this current climate is that we, as a people - and if you look at the polls, it's not just crazy right-wingers - have had enough. Many of us on the Right weren't too thrilled with everything Bush did. This isn't about disliking Obama just because he's a Democrat and Republicans lost. This is about disliking what our elected officials are doing. The bailout, the stimulus, cap and trade, cash for clunkers, Freddie and Fannie, the list just goes on and on. When Americans send letters and emails and protest and overwhelmingly (according to polls) don't like what's happening, we feel justifiable anger at how our elected officials are failing to represent us. This isn't just about healthcare. Healthcare is merely the brutal punch that finally awakened the sleeping giant.

So when average Americans call their elected representatives "Nazis," they are saying their elected representatives aren't representing them. If the Left would check their history, they'd realize Nazis didn't start out killing babies and torturing and annihilating those they disliked. First they won elected seats. Then they forced their agenda. Then they changed the laws to make their agenda legal. By the time most Germans woke up and realized there was a problem and that they were losing their freedoms, their freedoms were gone. It was too late and they were under Nazi control. When we call our politicians "Nazis," we aren't disrespecting those who died at the Nazis' hands. We're saying we learned from them. We see how quickly and easily freedom can be lost. That's not disrespect. That's honor.

As for this speech, given the climate of the country, given that we have so many things to address, given that most Americans (see the polls) don't like what the President is doing, why on earth would he spend students' educational time on a 30-minute speech? Please tell me what early elementary student can follow a 30-minute speech? A speech is one thing, but to condescend to offer lesson plans is offensive and appears suspicious. He and his advisers should know this. They should realize that the climate is not conducive to this address. With American's dislike and distrust of his leadership, the appearance isn't one of the President showing an interest in the education of our children, but rather an opportunity for propaganda.

I have two kids in school. I'm torn on how to approach the speech. My son has already been taught that the water that we use in our house gets emptied into our creeks and streams and goes into the oceans. What nonsense. Clearly, no one at the school has heard of water-treatment plants. At any rate, I'm not pleased. I would really like to believe the speech will merely be about working hard in school to be a productive member of society. But that message won't fill 30 minutes. To fill 30 minutes, you need ... filler. And the filler has me concerned.