National Review Criticizes Obama Over Holocaust Remembrance Statement

[kandace]

President Obama issued a statement yesterday to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day. He noted that survivors who bore witness to “the horrors of the cattle cars, ghettos, and concentration camps have witnessed humanity at its very worst and know too well the pain of losing loved ones to senseless violence.”

The idea that all violence is “senseless” violence is one that has taken deep root on the left; it’s also, unfortunately, one that poses a major impediment to understanding the world.

Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly “senseless.” By the early 1930s, the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of devoted members and repeatedly attracted a third of the votes in German elections; its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.

[kandace]

If Obama said "Mary had a little lamb," the Right would yell, "Mary cannot have a little lamb!"

[soulflower]

If Obama said "Mary had a little lamb," the Right would yell, "Mary cannot have a little lamb!"

They oppose every little thing Obama does or says. Never have I seen so many adults behave like children...

[Baltimatt]

Bizarre. The first comment sums it up nicely.

Holy ****, guys. I mean, I know you don't like Obama, but you respond to him calling the holocaust "senseless violence" by defending Nazis a little bit? Good god, pick your battles.

...

You people are something else. I can't honestly think of an example worse than this. If you'd defended something else awful because Obama opposed it, and someone said "If he came out against Naziism, the republicans would defend it" I'd have said "Oh, stop being an idiot. No one would defend that"

[Creekman]

The National Review???????? Really??? Criticize Obama?????

Is that not there life's work?

[kandace]

The National Review supported Jim Crow in the 1950s, so its stance vis a vis Obama and Nazism should not be that surprising:

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."