Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Flashermac]

He may well end up as an "elder statesman" anyway. Even Nixon was sort of forgiven after a number of years.

[gravelrash]

As the article mentioned there are the tried and proven methods dictators like to follow.

If memory serves me, Hitler burned down the Reichstag and blamed it on the communists. This of course meant that security needed to be tightened and individual liberties forgone to help fight the faceless enemy. Hmmm, now why does this sound familiar? Probably should toss in more video surveillance, ID cards, maybe curfews later and the Brown Shirts just to make sure those concentration camps don't go to waste.

Didn't following the detonation of a small bomb in Bangkok that the police cannot identify but inferred by some to be Taxin, lead to the military wanting martial law reimposed?

Don't get me wrong, a fascist state can be a lot of fun if you are part of the elite pulling the strings, just ask the Burmese.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Remember how Bush got elected the last time? A video from Ben Laden.

[Steve]

Good article Soi Arai.

 

The point about the imposition of a state of emergency in the event of another terrorist attack is important.

 

Plans have been in place since the Regan administration for "continuity of government" in an emergency situation. This is in fact the reason why FEMA was set up. The government has been given the following powers by Presidential executive orders related to FEMA:

and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations....

 

Besides a terrorist attack, another event which might lead to the declaration of a state of emergency is an outbreak of disease, such as bird flu.

 

...and we make it easier to control the populace by taking away their right to bear arms then, right? These FEMA executive orders seems to be one of the primary reasons the framers gave that right.

[Fidel]

Steve,

 

I agree, to a point. The issue is, how does the US ensure that guns are used for the purposes intended in the constitution, i.e. defense against a tyrannical government, rather than for shooting dozens of random, innocent civilians.

[Steve]

You can't. Every right has a down side to it and its up to the majority to decide if the downside is enough for them to WILLILNGLY give up that right.

The right to a free press doesn't guarantee you won't get slandered in the press or that some editor doesn't stay just inside this side of the law and defame you.

The right to religion doesn't guarantee you won't have cults or scientologists.

The right to speech, doesn't guarantee I can't have someone call me the N word. Nor should it, frankly.

The right to vote doesn't negate a Dubya or a Nixon getting elected.

 

If the fears of some about America becoming a fascist state is legitimate then the right to bear arms by the citizenry seems to be the last remaining defense against it...along with the right to vote.

[chuckwoww]

It looks to me like the pro-war pro-gun pro-Bush people don't mind losing a few freedoms because there's a war on. The people complaining tend to be anti-war anti-gun anti Bush. Is that a fair assessment?

[Fidel]

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper.

[Bangkoktraveler]

To be 'FREE' would seem to imply that a person should have the right to defend themself. If you can not defend yourself personally, are you free?

[Steve]

I would say anti the Iraq war for the opposition. Given the right set of circumstances, even pacifists in this country wouldn't be opposed to a 'just' war. The difference is what we all deem 'just'?

 

It seems that some of the pro Bush, pro war crowd don't mind the lost of some rights as long as its their man that's doing it.

 

I would guess that those that are most virulently against Bush would be Dems or left of center, although this could also include centrists as well and 3rd party folks.

 

Its interesting though that if the left thinks the right will turn us into a fascist state, having as much as 70 million citizens with fire arms presently may be the last defense against such a state.

 

Personall, I'm one of those 'centrists' (Switzerland as my friends like to call me...lol) who has voted for either party depending on a variety of things at the time. I've even gone Libertarian on occasion when the candidates of both parties seem totally unacceptable to me.