This is so stupid and acidic that I feel compelled to respond.
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
Hitler was born and raised in Austria. So was his father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Childhood_and_heritage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Hitler#Birth
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer.
Hitler became close to his mother because his father beat them both. This is not comparable to Obama's relationship with his father; if anything, you could compare this to the relationship Gerald Ford had with his mother.
Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
This also is a ridiculous comparison.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/11/03/obamas-birth-certificate-verified/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Obama's birth certificate has been confirmed. I don't see what this has to do with Hitler, who actually did change his name.
I grow up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity
because this was widely accepted in my country.
Obama has never practiced any religion but Christianity:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Hitler was raised a Catholic; he did not "convert" to Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Childhood_and_youth
But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
This is true of Hitler but not of Obama.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
So being lower class is somehow sinister?
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.
It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I am betting that you have not read Mein Kampf. Or Obama's books, for that matter.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s.
Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Grover Cleveland Alexander, James A. Garfield, Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin Pierce, James K. Polk, and Bill Clinton were also in their 40s when elected. What is your point?
I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization.
Apparently being a community organizer, lecturer on constitutional law for 14 years, state senator, and U.S. senator is a "virtually non-existent résumé".
Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
Since when is being a good speaker a bad thing? Reagan was a good speaker as well.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war.
This is not true of Hitler at all. Next time, do a little research rather than copy/pasting every wingnut chain email you receive.
But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better.
Yes, and Hitler's economic reforms were actually extremely good for Germany. I fail to see your point here; economics are a major issue in many Presidential campaigns.
I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a peoples campaign.
Is this a bad thing? Reagan also "knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess". So did Roosevelt.
I was the surprise candidate because
I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support.
So, being a leader who actually cares about the people and gains popular support is somehow nefarious? Guess who else gained "widespread popular support". Ronald Reagan.
I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
As did Kennedy. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted
minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader.
Please stop with the fear-mongering. Obama has been just as clear about his views as any Presidential candidate.
However, anyone could have easily learned what I
really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Yes, in Hitler's case the racist ideology was clear. This does not apply to Obama at all.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world.
Hitler was never the most powerful man in the world.
It's True what they say, History does repeat Itself!
Those who actually understand historical processes pay little heed to the "history repeats itself" drivel. You can selectively compare any leaders in history you wish, and you will find similarities. Most of your comparisons fit many former Presidents just as well (if not better) than they do Obama. Your post is an absurd extrapolation and more of the hateful fear-mongering propaganda that has been virulently circulated around President-elect Obama for months. If this election has achieved only one thing, it is to show how deeply racism, bigotry, and xenophobia are rooted in the United States and how divisive these elements are. Please do not further poison this thread with your ignorance and bitterness.
