Saying Bad Things About Hitler or Obama

There's a fair degree of moral outrage about the most insignificant things these days, and a fair absence of it over matters of substance.  

For example, Ted Cruz -- acting at the behest of his own conscience and the command of his electorate -- fights the good fight to defund Obama care.  When he succeeds, if he succeeds, he lifts tonnage weight off the shoulders of taxpayers not yet born.  But this riles the Neocon Republicans, the socialists in the Democratic Party, and the sock puppet in the Oval Office. 

The Catholic Church and its agencies will be compelled to pay for insurance coverage for abortifacient drugs, and we will all be forced to fund about 120,000 abortions annually under Obamacare.  The left wing loons all only see the horrid injustice of allowing Americans to carry the cost of purchasing contraceptives themselves.  

The histrionics of the lily-livered Republicrats, the Democrats, and the chattering class make those who supported the shut down, and the effort to defund Obamacare, out to be suicide vest bombers, arsonists, and deranged.  But the only outrage is over the occasional comparison of Obama with other nationalist Socialists. 

Case in point, Arizona State House member Brenda Barton:

Representative Barton took aim at the Administration's decision to spend money making sure the parks were all closed during the government shut-down.  Read her remarks, then come back and let me ask you a few questions:

So, what do you think? Is it wrong to call Obama Der Fuerher? If you think it is wrong, why?

-- Is the comparison ill-suited because Obama is inept, but Hitler was some kind of evil genius?  Meaning, Obama is kind of like our Pinkie of evil, but Hitler was the Brain?

-- Does the comparison fail because of Hitler's mesmerizing rhetoric, that brought a Nation to compliance with a horrifically murderous agenda, but Obama becomes Mister Stumbletongue when the teleprompter goes down or gets left behind?

-- Perhaps Obama has failed, thus far, at gun confiscation while Hitler actually succeeded at disarming his nation?

-- Maybe the comparison does not work because Hitler's persecution of the church was more complete, while Obama is satisfied so far to silence military chaplains in the expression of their faith, compel faith-based groups to fund the purchase of abortifiacient contraceptives? 

-- Perhaps the problem is that Obama, as a mere sock puppet of Soros, actually bears no responsibility for the destruction of the country he claims as his own, whereas Hitler's Mein Kampf illustrates a road map to the terrors of the Third Reich, making Hitler the puppet master, not the puppet?

  -- Is it because Hitler made Jews out as scapegoats, and Obama only makes conservatives, tea party types, libertarians, radio hosts, and bloggers out as scape goats?

-- Perhaps it's as Marge Schott suggested, because Hitler had his trains run on time, but as well all now know Obama can't get a $643,000,000 website to work? 

-- Some may object because Obama says old people that need pacemakers to regulate their heart beats should expect to live on pain relievers but Hitler would simply have euthanized them?

-- Or is it because Hitler wanted to bring virtually all of Europe within the boundaries of Germany, and Obama only wants to make 15,000,000 Central and South Americans illegally present in America's boundaries into voting citizens?

So tell me, tell me please, whether and why the comparison to Hitler fails.