One of the very first "Usual Suspects" columns was entitled "Thank God For Hitler," and it was a cry of anguish over the unwillingness of the left to condemn anything on earth — from communism to animal cohabitation — as inherently evil. The one exception, I noted, was Nazism, which even the most moronic multiculturalist would concede was, well, not a good thing.
"Thank God for Hitler," I wrote those many years ago. "At least he's keeping the idea of evil alive for the American Left."
That was the good news. The bad news is Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Law, as formulated by internet pioneer Mike Godwin in 1990, states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
The Graham Corollary is "And if you're debating a liberal, getting to 'You're Hitler!' will take about one minute. Or less."
And so I wasn't surprised when America's first Muslim congressman and darling of the Left, Keith Ellison (D-Minnesotastan) invoked the "N" word — Nazi — with regards to the Bush administration.
Congressman Ellison compared the 9/11 attacks — you know, when terrorists inspired by a certain, unnamed religion of peace murdered 3,000 innocents — to the burning of the Reichstag during the Nazi's rise to power.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, [9/11] kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted," Ellison said.
The typical person with a History Channel level of knowledge believes the Reichstag fire was an inside job that the Nazis blamed on the Jews. The Nazis turned those anti-Semitic resentments into political power.
Get it? No real fire. No real threat. All made up.
Opponents of the Global War On (Islamist) Terror are certainly free to compare George W. Bush to Hitler, but they must be aware that the more apt ideological comparison is between the Nazis and the Islamic nuts.
In other words, Bush is "Hitler" because he's waging war on the people who want to kill all the Jews. And Harry Reid is, theoretically, the "Allies" because he stayed up all night arguing that we should let the Nazis keep France.
Well I don't. Setting aside the 9/11 tinfoil-hat lunacy, can Democrats not see the nauseating amorality of their current position? What is the moral framework you're using to conclude that Bush/Cheney should be impeached but terror-sponsoring Jew-hater Mahmoud Ahmed-Whack-I-Job should be appeased?
In the 1930s, there was a group of angry Republicans who hated President Roosevelt so much they were prepared to admire Adolf Hitler. Their short-sighted, self-satisfying hatred inspired a moral failing that shamed them forever.
Today it is the modern American left, suffering under Bush Derangement Syndrome, who have lost sight of the real evils attendant in the world. They can't see that their embrace of an American defeat in Iraq means embracing victory for Nazism in its modern form — fundamentalist Islam.
It's interesting that, as of this writing, not a single Democrat (not even from the evil "Jewish Lobby") has condemned Congressman Ellison's well-publicized comments. It's also interesting that few if any Democrats have condemned the moonbat musings of Ellison or anyone else regarding a 9/11 conspiracy.
Instead, we have Democratic members of Congress with more admiration for Yassir Arafat (the most efficient killer of Jews since Hitler) than for President Bush.
Godwin's Law may soon get an update along these lines: In any debate with a liberal, he will almost certainly compare you to Hitler. Unless he's really mad, in which case he'll compare you to George W. Bush.