The Fallacy of Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler

Anyone that uses Hitler and the NAZIs as an example of a partisan demonetization is beyond ignorant, and has obviously done no independent research (read a book!). One fact is the German people were unbelievably oppressed by the The Treaty of Versailles. The Germans also preferred a strong centralized government and viewed Democracy as weak form of government, preferring a reactionary government that can quickly respond to problems without the need for a consensuses. The US was founded on the US Constitution, which is the rule of law; the American people know no other, nor will they accept any other form of government. No one person, no matter how popular, can place themselves before the law, without eventual consequences and their ouster (the structure of the Constitution was specifically designed not to allow any absolute dictator, group of people, or king from taking over). The left is rioting and resulting in the destruction of property, injury and even deaths. Yet you are concerned about Trump? If one opens their eyes and see which party has been pushing the boundaries of more governmental control against the will of the people. WE have a President that touted pushing "collective solutions", which by definition rob the citizenry of indivual rights.  One thing that has not considered or discussed is the US is a representative republic with numerous safeguards including the separation of powers, that guarantee no one branch, primarily the Executive branch can overstep their authority. Even Obama, who continually pushed past his authority as President was held back by the Judicial Branch. Many of the people that voted for Trump were outraged becasue the rule of law (the strongest pillar of our representative republic), was being subordinated by the Obama Administration and his DOJ. It should be interesting to note that Obama promised not to try and legislate via executive actions and then we went and used them liberally to bypass congress. There is also the false belief that Democrats somehow are the savior of black America, when nothing could be further than the truth. Let's not forget that Southern Democrats, continued to resist seeing the freed slaves as equal human beings (something the Republicans championed long before the civil war), well into the 1960s, and then not until the Democrats abandoned the south, claiming a new found morality by championing the civil rights legislation they had blocked for decades. The end result is blacks are now trapped in government run plantations, run by Democrats. These Democrat segregated cities have high murder rates (if a black male between 15 and 35 dies, there is a 48% probability it was the result of being murdered, being the primary cause of death in this age group), low wages, high unemployment, high crime (which leads to higher incarceration of blacks), poor education; but the worst is almost total dependence on government handouts, which is the result of welfare system. This Democrat experiment in social engineering destroyed the black family structure as it paid more money to families  without  a father/husband living at home . The demands and cries for help, to be delivered from these hell holes fall on Democrats deaf ears, except when they need their voting block every two years. Finally, any discussion of NAZI tatics would not be complete without the Brown Shirts (The Sturmabteilung or SA). Their purpose was to respond to neighborhoods and squash and rersistance to the NAZI movement, using violence and terror. If one looks at the US today, one sees, not the right, but the left is perpetrating violence and terror. There is video evidence that members of the Democrat party would pay homeless and/or mentally ill people to try and disrupt Trump rallies. Then you have convincing evidence that an admitted NAZI sympathizer, George Soros is paying bus loads of primarily black agitators to again disrupt Trump rallies. And since Trump won the election, Soros has continues to bus these agitators to various cities resulting in violent demonstrations that have resulted in injuries and deaths. Of course none of these agitators even remotely resemble the violence and inhumanity of the NAZI's, but much like the Communist Party of the 1950s, the Democrat party has now become an exclusive club that demands strict adherence to an agenda; an agenda that has the purpose of denigrating indivual rights with the promise of central control from an elite and forced equality, paid for by the working middle class, which, it turns out was the end game of ObamaCare.

Obama and Hillary Clinton; Conman/ Con- Woman, Incompetent and Fascists

The following is a response to pair of liberal letters to the editor, this one from the elitists;
 The first;  A revelation from the current election campaign has been generally overlooked. For a democracy to succeed, its citizens have to be well educated, and in particular develop the ability of critical thinking, distinguishing facts from fiction. The fact that millions of our citizens can be deceived by a presidential candidate who is a con artist underscores the failure of our educational system.

The definition of a conman is someone that promises one thing and delivers either something else, something inferior or nothing. Considering Obama failed to follow through with any of his campaign promises and knowingly lied to the American People about his now failing government control of medical care in the US, Obama is certainly one of the biggest conman that has ever been. With Hillary being a congenital liar and ready to continue the Obama juggernaut, in she wins the presidency we will be replacing a conman for a con-woman. While Trump has tweeted some questionable facts, if he did not live up to his agreements, he would not have been so successful; this is what happens in the real world. If you are not dependable you will fail. In politics, being undependable to the people is sometimes a prerequisite, where lies are called having misspoke, or as Hillary said when called on not being a victim of sniper fire, "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement". WHAT? Being undependable is especially important when you are a Democrat promising more than one can ever deliver. With all his faults, Trump is not a politician and actually knows that the people want, rather than the likes of the Democrats telling the people they are too stupid for self government, so the government must ignore the will of the people, as Americans need to be coerced to give up their indivual rights, their culture, their love of country, their borders, their sovereignty and their right to self government, all in the name of globalism, as we bow to world governance. To paraphrase Harry Truman, Trump may be a son of a bit@h, but he's the peoples son of a bit@h, and not part of the political elite that wants to put an end to American exceptionalism.

The second is a liberal ignoring his own progressive embrace fascism, while falsely accusing him of the same, as he also demonizes Trump for his lack of political correctness;  If Trump represents anything it is Fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world. If that is what half of the US voters support then we are like Germany in the early 1930's and will suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

If any politician represents, "fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world", it is the Obama, the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. By all measures Hillary is an elitist, who not only "lack(s) of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US", the evidence is she really doesn't care. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 8 years ago, the result of Obama's incompetence. But his incompetence is a globalist agenda driven, while Hillary's incompetence continues to be driven corruption, with her seemingly unending need for wealth and power. It's interesting to note that Hillary rarely runs on her record as a senator and Sec. Of State, but rather demonizes Trump lack of political correctness, calling out his supposed xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and Islamophobia.

Most toss the word "fascism" around without really knowing what it means; it is not Nazism. Fascism is a close relationship between the government and the means of production. Benito Mussolini, considered one of the great socialist writers, saw fascism as a method to give an economic generator to socialism (nationalization of the means of production usually failed to produce national wealth, becasue the government had taken over as was trying to run the means of production ie manufacturing, even though they had no expertise or experience in production. Fascism allows the original non-government entities with expertise to remain running the means of production, but maintains control through regulations). We already see that Hillary has accepted millions from the corporate America, and there is little doubt their "donations" will be returned 10 fold.

Fascism also needs a strike force to respond to those that threaten the government and/or their control of the means of production. Prior to Obama the US did not have a civilian national security force, but now we do with the huge expanse of Homeland Security; "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama So Obama has laid down the framework with back office deals and numerous regulations, both designed to remove impediments to production while maintaining control of the economy.

The question is not will US voters vote to support an oppressive government, instead the question is will US voters continue to allow the growth of oppression that has been but in overdrive by Obama and will no doubt be continued by Hillary Clinton.

Historically Fascism was Derived from the Left and Socialism

Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, all fall under the heading of collectivism; big government viewing the citizenry as a single entity and providing for the collective with what the Intelligentsia decides their common wants and needs without any consideration for the individual, and whereby taking care of the collective by controlling everything in their lives. This is opposed to a government of the people, by the people and for the people; remembering by definition the protection of individual rights is a protection from government. The concept of fascism was developed by Benito Mussolini, considered by historians as being one of the most influential socialists of the 20th Century. Fascism was designed to address what he saw as the weaknesses in socialism, and that when the socialists nationalize businesses, the socialists in charge actually know very little about running them. So fascism is the government pairing with business, kept in government control by overseers and strict regulations, to maintain the production rates prior to government nationalization. Further like socialism, there is no one kind of fascism, it is a robust system as was seen in it's various in Spain under Franco, Italy and Germany; one thing they all share is the abolition of Democracy. The point being that the left champions collectivism, which is based on the belief that individual rights need to be done away with in the name of saving and preserving the collective; that the government needs to control the citizenry for their own good..

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to mitigate collectivism by protecting individual rights, but even our founding fathers recognized, that no matter what restrictions are put on government, it was doubtful their new country would last more than 200 years as the progression of government tyranny is just to difficult to to withstand.

Is Pope Francis Moving the World Toward Fasicsm?

Pope Francis lived under  Perónism in Argentina during his early life and talk of Liberation Theology in his later life. Perónism was a fascists personality cult, which like most fascists states provided numerous benefits for those collectively defined as the "workers"; ie  100% employment, universal healthcare, good wages and vacations. Of course it is fascism, meaning an alliance where government and corporations tend to blur together, and the market is controlled and redistribution of wealth; with Perónism redistribution leaned heavily toward the workers, which he used as a voting block to keep himself in office.

"(Juan) Perón and his administration resorted to organized violence and dictatorial rule. Perón showed contempt for any opponents, and regularly characterized them as traitors and agents of foreign powers. Perón maintained the institutions of democratic rule, but subverted freedoms through such actions as nationalizing the broadcasting system, centralizing the unions under his control, and monopolizing the supply of newspaper print. At times, Perón also resorted to tactics such as illegally imprisoning opposition politicians and journalists.  Wikipedia-Peronism

Latin American Liberation Theology (LT) was a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s and 1960s. Gustavo Gutiérrez is credited one of the principal founders of liberation theology in Latin America; "According to Gutiérrez true “liberation” has three main dimensions: First, it involves political and social liberation, the elimination of the immediate causes of poverty and injustice. Second, liberation involves the emancipation of the poor, the marginalised, the downtrodden and the oppressed from all “those things that limit their capacity to develop themselves freely and in dignity”. Third, liberation theology involves liberation from selfishness and sin, a re-establishment of a relationship with God and with other people. Gustavo Gutiérrez /

LT is supposed to be based on the original Christians that dedicated their lives to helping the sick and poor. The purpose of LT is to alleviate the poor of their suffering, primarily through activism, controlled economies and redistribution (aka social justice). LT is heavily influenced by Marxists doctrine and viewing the poor as a collective; LT is anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois (middle class), anti-consumerist, advocating a single workers class (proletariat).  After the fall of the Soviet Union, evidence was turned over that showed LT was developed by the Soviet Union in order to align the Catholic Church with communism. principles. Former Soviet Spy We Created Liberation Theology 
 
Pope John Paul ll viewed LT, with it's collective salvation as too political and diverging to far from the individual relationship and salvation that is the core of Christianity; preferring orthopraxy (ethical and liturgical conduct), in the absence of faith or grace. Through Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, John Paul's explained that main enemy of the church was modern secularism and that liberation theology is part of this secularism. "All human activity", John Paul has said, "must have reference to the ultimate meaning of life, which is eternal salvation. While seeking to concentrate their efforts on life here and now, modern people have forgotten this essential truth." The Retreat Of Liberation 
 Theology" 

The Pending Implosion of the US; What's the Fix?

In a recent email correspondence with Georgia Beardslee (a KSCO Santa Cruz  radio personality), she asked what to do with the downward spiral of our country,; "The question is, how do we fix it?  It is like a cancer that has metastasized!" This was my answer.

I do not believe there is a fix.  With some $80 trillion in debt, laws piled on laws (Obamacare has grown from 2700 pages to 20,000 pages) . The US was an experiment in self rule that may in it's present form run it's course. In the book the 4th turning it explains that as history has unfolded there were 4 distinct epochs (see attached for some exerts). We are now entering the 4th turning a time of tearing down and knocking out the dead wood before a time of rebuilding. I belive what is important is to keep the belief in the rugged individualist alive. The day will come when we will need to rebuild and our founding fathers have already written the documents for us (there is nothing going on in the US that our founding fathers didn't warn us about).  As the US economy has descended in Crony Capitalism our government has decompensated (a term used in psychology to define a mental person losing control) into a form of fascism. It is a truism that the larger government grows the more corrupt it becomes. When the US government finally implodes we will once again need to form state governments and they will need to answer to the will of the people; our time is coming soon to save our country when the collectivists once again fail. 

 So we just need to be here for each other; like the early Christians that spread the word of the gospel, not by evangelizing but helping and feeding the poor, so those looking for a better way started looking at what the Christians had that led them to their love and caring of their fellow man.

Here is a small section from the Forth Turning; I highly suggest you read this book.

The reward of the historian is to locate patterns that recur over time and to discover the natural rhythms of social experience. In fact, at the core of modern history lies this remarkable pattern : Over the past five centuries, Anglo-American society has entered a new era—a new turning—every two decades or so. At the start of each turning, people change how they feel about themselves, the culture, the nation,and the future. Turnings come in cycles of four. Each cycle spans the length of a long human life, roughly eighty to one hundred years, a unit of time the ancients called the saeculum. Together, the four turnings of the saeculum comprise history's seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and destruction:

The First Turning is a High, an upbeat era of strengthening institutions and weakening individualism, when a new civic order implants and the old values regime decays.

 The Second Turning is an Awakening, a passionate era of spiritual upheaval, when the civic order comes under attack from a new values regime.

The Third Turning is an Unraveling, adowncast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the old civic order decays and the new values regime implants.

The Fourth Turning is a Crisis, a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.

The next Fourth Turning is due to begin shortly after the new millennium, midway through the Oh-Oh decade. Around the year 2005, a sudden spark will catalyze a Crisis mood. Remnants of the old social order will disintegrate. Political and economic trust will implode. Real hardship will beset the land, with severe distress that could involve questions of class, race, nation, and empire. Yet this time of trouble will bring seeds of social rebirth. Americans will share a regret about recent mistakes— and a resolute new consensus about what to do. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake. Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history...  But in the crucible of Crisis, that will change. As the old civic order gives way, Americans will have to craft a new one. This will require a values consensus and, to administer it, the empowerment of a strong new political regime. If all goes well, there could be a renaissance of civic trust, and more.

 Strauss, William; Howe, Neil (2009-01-16). The Fourth Turning (Kindle Locations 154-156). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Islam; a Religion of Misogamy and Fascism

The elephant in the room with Eastern Islam and Sharia law is the misogamy that purveys the society; where else in the world does a female rape victim have to first overcome the presumption that the rape was her fault; where rape is a form of punishment carried out by holy clerics? Or women caught unaccompanied in public are either considered a prostitute and raped on the spot or detained by the police and subjected to an inspection to show they are still a virgin? There is also the existence of honor killings, where the man of the house is free to kill the women of the house if one (or more) dishonors him by not bowing to any of his demands.   Those that pretend to talk for the Muslim world say this is a radical form of Islam and practiced by only a small minority of Muslims. The reality is something quite different; in all middle eastern countries were  Islam is pervasive, Sharia it is law of the land. Even if a Muslim is not a member of a "radical" Islam they are afraid to speak out against it. It is also well known that the Muslim Brotherhood gives one message of acceptance to the western world, but tells the Eastern Islamic world of the need destroy the West and replace it with Sharia law. The end result of this is the increase of Sharia law and  the rise misogamy in Western Islam.

In the United States our constitution guarantees freedom of religion and in some cases the rule of law is relaxed to accommodate religious practices. But nowhere should a religious standard of laws (Sharia) ever replace the protections of our Constitution. The United States should not use it's position in the world to physically  intervene in the workings or overthrow the leadership another sovereign nation. But that does not mean we can not voice our displeasure with these archaic laws and withhold financial support until women's rights are strictly enforced and  government sponsored  misogamy is no longer tolerated.The fact President Obama continues to court and excuse this horrid treatment of women by Muslim countries is a travesty of human rights.

Mom! Where Is My Democracy?

 It should have been no surprise that the new Islamic regime in Egypt would crumble. More than any country in the world the Egyptian people are intent on a Democracy (over 1/4 of the adult population went to the streets to demand the ouster of Morsi) but unfortunately they don't understand how to set one up. For a Democracy to work  the people must have individual rights protected by an unimpeachable constitution that limits the power of the government. What occurred in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, was more like a fascists plebiscite as they have in Venezuela;  where the people vote to re-confirm or replace their dictator. The Egyptian people are very religious (nearly 90% are Islamic Sunni) and while they favor Sharia law, they must have a rule of law that supercedes their religious beliefs. Further, the Egyptian people have rationalized pervasive misogamy using Sharia law such that  hundreds of women are being raped and/or beaten simply for participating in the Tahrir Square Demonstrations (and as mentioned before women who complain must first prove it wasn't their own doing). Oliver Ellisworth one of our Founding fathers said " The primary objects of government are peace, order, and prosperity of society. To the promotion of these objects, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support." Until the Egyptian people mature to the point that they no longer fear women and the power they hold over men they will never have the Democracy they crave.

President Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy in Pictures; Egyptians Protest Obama!

I recently wrote how Obama's foreign policy legacy is to undermine current governments and inserting terrorists government President Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy . In the current insurrection in Egypt were the Egyptian people by the millions, are protesting the Muslim Brotherhood fascist Islamic government (almost by definition any Islamic government based on Sharia law is misogynistic fascists). Here is another story the main stream media will not show, and that is the Egyptian people are laying the blame square on the Obama administration for backing the Mohammed Morsi regime; the media will report the fall of the Morsi regime, but not the hatred the Egyptian people have for Obama.
The photos below say it all. 15 Photos From Tahrir Square Protests

What is really questionable is if President Obama really understands what a Democracy is; it is certainly more than 1 vote, 1 person, 1 time. A Democracy is one person one vote and usually coupled with the rule of law; however if a government, whether voted in or not, ignores the will of the people, it is the peoples responsibility to take the country back. ...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. The US Declaration of Independence..Yet President Obama speaks as if 12 million people taking to the streets, that largest public demonstration ever recorded, were simply a small band of Morsi protestors.  "The goal of any political process should be a government that respects the rights of all people, majority and minority; that institutionalizes the checks and balances upon which democracy depends; and that places the interests of the people above party or faction," he (President Obama) added, noting that those protesting Morsi's government must be heard. So, the Egyptian military is operating according to the will of the people, beyond the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, NATO and President Obama and that's the real problem. It is a sobering thought that both Hitler and Mussolini were democratically voted into office. If you are President Obama had the people taken their country back before the aristocracies they caused  it would have been a crime against democracy rather than the crimes against humanity that followed.

Defining Fascism in America

When the Tea Party says they see our Constitutional government sliding into fascism, most believe they mean the Nazi Germany form of fascism, however that is far from accurate. Fascism is a form a government that was embraced by the National Socialists (Nazis) and tailored to their needs. However, fascism is a robust governmental format, based on the pillars of combining Socialism, Capitalism and property ownership, and would look quite different in America then in Nazi Germany. So lets look at some of the pillars of fascism and how it would change the United States.

1. A reactive government led by a charismatic leader who has the final say so on everything (this could also be a committee). This would allow the government to address the serious problems facing the country such as global warming and unemployment; when a problem crops up the government reacts with a solution that is immediately put into place. This does not do away with congress, but it delegates our representatives to an advisory role.

2. A fair redistribution of wealth; fascism believes in hegemony over big business and the treatment of workers. In trade with big business for reactively removing the impediments to production, the government would dictate a livable wage for all workers and a cap on profits. Labor unions would be incorporated into the government, as it would be government’s job to settle all worker disputes.

3. Care of the collective. The US Constitution is based on individual rights over the rights of the collective. Fascism would allow the government to care for the collective in more equal manner. A singlepayer high quality health plan will be a available (and mandatory) for all citizens. Since a living wage would also be mandatory, poverty as we no it would disappear.

4. On a conservative note, a fascist state would have secure borders and strictly enforced laws. There would be no question as to liberal interpretation of the Constitution or liberal judges, as the leadership of the country would be the sole arbitrator of what is right and what is acceptable. Unlike the Communist concept of, “to each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”, the fascist motto starts out the same, “to each according to their ability,” recognizing that everyone has abilities that would benefit the state and collective, the second half of the motto is, “to each according to their contribution.” In other words, fascism recognizes that ability does not necessary equate to action. In order to be supported by the state, you would need to contribute.

So fascism seems to have something for everyone. The only caveat is the end of individual rights in the name of benefiting the collective. This however this already exists in almost all governmental programs, for almost by definition government support programs paid through the distribution of wealth, support the collective not the individual. Even, so called ObamaCare, would be facilitated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has the final say so on approving medical procedures. While this approval system is advertised to “ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best,” it is in actuality a ration system, designed to lower medical costs and favors the collective or the needs of the individual.

In a recent exchange on Fox news stemming from the Hoffa comments about taking the SOB Tea Party "out", Robert Beckel was enraged that someone would call President Obama a socialist; an insult he called disgraceful and disgusting Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling Get in Heated Argument Over Hoffa Comments. Righfully Eric Bolling asked Beckel if he even knew what socialism was, to which Beckel blew up and the show took an unscheduled cut to a commercial. What is obvious from this exchange is the continuing intellectual dishonesty of the left. Beckel rightfully knows that President Obama leans toward socialism, however to allow that to be even discussed is simply to damaging to the left, so like fascism, any discussion of the President moving the country toward socialism is now labeled a pejorative by the left, so the issue can not even be discussed.

The reason the secular progressives must be intellectually dishonest, is because they know the citizenry is by definition ignorant and would never accept the principals of socialism/fascism. However, secular progressives know that socialism is what’s best for the ignorant collective, even if they don’t know what’s best for them. Therefore they must convince the citizenry that they are not socialist/fascists as the incrementally move the country in that direction. ObamaCare is a major step forward, for designed into ObamaCare is the next all encompassing government program that forces the entire population to view themselves as a collective under the care of the government.

Creeping Fascism

The following was response to Rebecca Costa of the Costa Report Radio show. Her guest was Texas anti-government activist Alfred Adask.

Ms Costa, while listening to you on KSCO with Alfred Adask and you had a discussion on sovereignty. You remarked that that there are many you do not want to make independent decisions and that large centrally run companies are more efficient then small independent (or sovereign) businesses. While I don’t disagree with your premise, I do wonder if you have considered the unintended consequences of such efficiency. F A Hayek, describes this well in “The Road to Serfdom;”

“We must here return for a moment to the position which proceeds the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure, which makes action for action’s sake the goal.”

I would also put to you that it is government itself and not just complexity that is the driving behind the seeming inability to address today’s problems and is exacerbated by the concept of never let a crisis go to waste; the crisis becomes a vehicle, not a problem to be solved. By it’s very nature a government progressing toward planned efficiency offers much more than it can ever deliver. Any Constitution Convention, which you referred to, would no doubt end personal freedom as we know it today in the name of a perceived moral change, as President Obama once said “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."

Our Constitution is not a living document, it is a legal document meant to design a representative government while simultaneously protecting the people from government tyranny. F A Hayek also commented on the fact that those that seek public office are generally the least desirable people we would want in positions of power. It is the inefficiency and built in protections that protect our personal freedoms and protects us from fascism. I would like to qualify this by saying I am not exercising the Godwin principle nor am I referencing National Socialism. Fascism is an umbrella form of government unique to every country were it has been embraced; the President has certainly praised the Chinese fascist model, and in the US it seems to be forming around the redistribution of wealth, Cass Sunstein’s “Nudge” theory and the “infallibility of government” argument. I also believe that socialism as a governmental premise does not really exist and that most the time when people reference socialism, what they really mean is fascism.

As we reexamine the concept of never let a crisis go to waste we are also faced with fascism as the answer to every crisis or example of success. As I previously noted the "infallibility of government” argument is the product of fascism and this includes the right of government to ignore the law for the betterment of the whole. One sees this more with President Obama Administration than any other president since FDR. Obama re-defines the Libyan war as a military kinetic action in order to evade the need for Congressional approval, the TSA has been granted previously unheard of powers over person privacy at the Presidents whim and President Obama has declared his right to assassinate any American, anywhere in the world for purposes known only to him. Eastern Islam has long had a connection to fascism, which continues in it’s campaign to instill Sharia law. In an era of economic meltdowns, the threat of global warming, and terrorism, the progressive movement continues to promote the fascists model, calling it a compassionate government.

Ms Costa replied with the following.

Hi Bradley,

Thanks for writing. I am not a political scientist so I look at things from a different perspective that you propose. I am a sociobiologist and as such I view the root of our problems as having more to do with hardwired evolutionary imperatives than politics, It seems to me that almost every threat we now face has become so overwhelmingly complex there are no longer any simple answers. . . we have met our match and we are now succumbing to complexity which exceeds our biological capabilities. .. if you would allow me to, it would be my privilege to send you a copy of my book. . .I would be interested to hear what you think. ..if you are interested email me your address. ..

I took her up on her offer and will follow-up.

Lies, Damn Lies and Opinion Polls

Mark Twain once said there are lies, damn lies and statistics; its time to add "opinion polls" to that list. What we are now seeing is that pollsters are manipulating their polls results by either basing the poll on non-reflective demographics and/or asking poll questions in a manner that will result in a requite result. The purpose seems to be to sustain the slipping support for President Obama and the progressive agenda in general. In an article in the Nation Review, Jan 17, 2011, Two New Polls Have Higher Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions the writer Katrino Trinko points out an AP poll that, showed increasing support for Obamacare, even though it was only two months earlier that the Democrats had received what may have been the greatest rebuff of policy in the history of US Politics; and a major part of this rebuff was Obamacare. What could have happened? Did the electorate suddenly reverse what has a wholesale rejection of the Democrat juggernaut? The answer of course is no. The pollsters chose a 42% / 36% Democrat to Republican demographic, where the exit polls during the election showed the demographic to be equal at about 36%. Further the results were also skewed by the nature of the questions. The new poll showed that opposition to Obamacare has slipped from 38% for, 47% against to 40% for, 41% against. “Kellyanne Conway(, the president of the polling company,) also notes that when asked if they would favor a law ‘that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor,’ 59 percent are opposed. ‘When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it,’ she says."

We are also faced with a CBS/ NY Times poll that shows that Wisconsin voters have reversed their backing of Gov Walker to stand up to the unions to reduce the state deficits. The poll results showed those opposed to Walker 56% to 37% in favor. In a March 1, 2011 article, also in the Nation Review Jim Gerargy Dissecting These New Wisconson Polls points out the again the demographics were manipulated for a desired result. In the last general-population survey, Wisconsin showed a 36% / 35% split between Republicans and Democrats, however the poll used a 26% Republican/ 36% Democrat split. Next, 20% of the poll’s respondents claim to come from union households. “However, only 11.9% of American workers belong to a union, according to a report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month and noted by none other than the Times itself.”

One reason that opinion polls have become nothing more than left leaning propaganda is that unlike an exit poll or other election poll, there is no defining way to determine the accuracy. Opinion polls used to be of value to the democratic process, but now it has become part and parcel of the ongoing erosion and creditability of the press. Who would have guessed that the American press, rather than being a stand-in for the public at large to guarantee the government and other public institutions fulfill their duties, is now damaging our democracy in ways none could have foreseen. Who would believe that the press in a country where a free press is guaranteed by it’s constitution, would self censor and reduce itself to stumping for a political party and trying to manufacture public opinion? In essence the American press has voluntarily become a tool of fascism, prior to a totalitarian government even taking power. One has to wonder how much more compliant the press will be if ever actually faced with the dictates of a fascist government.

As You See It; Obama, the Constitution, George Bush, Fascism and the Party of "No"

Well it was a rousing couple of days responding to the Santa Cruz Sentential "As You See It" response forum. It starts with an printed article of mine (September 2) pared down from a longer blog article titled "Not Quite the Truth"; following are some responses and my follow-up responses. Next on September 4, starts with my responding to a Party of "No" criticism of the Republicans, then bounced around from George Bush, to Constitutional Rights and fascism. This ends with another pared down letter I sent to the Sentential which may or may not be published.

September 2, 2010

Not quite the truth

The red herring being thrown out by the progressive left about the ground zero mosque is that this is all about the First Amendment and religious freedom; this could not be further from the truth. The reason is the Bill of Rights protects the citizenry from government, but does not restrain the citizenry. If we all agree that government has no say about building the mosque, then whatever the citizens say or demonstrate about has no attachment to the Constitution's protection against government intrusion. The citizenry is therefore protected by the First Amendment to protest the mosque; you can't claim one right to the exclusion of another. Thomas Jefferson said, "As long as you don't pick my pocket or kick me in the leg, I don't care what else you do."
Brad *******, Santa Cruz

Bradish wrote:
There is no link to progressives with any of mosque rights or appropriateness. Well, not until Brad admits the sin of professing WMDs resulted in the death and wounding of United States soldiers, as well as many thousands of innocent people. Thanks for personally bankrupting the USA, Brad.

brad responded;
Here again is the Progressive left trying to re-frame the argument. Like all progressives, you try to re-write history to fit your world view. Even without WMD's Iraq had consistently violated UN resolutions for weapons inspections and the decision to go to war was unilateral, including the UN and the vast majority of both sides of Congress. Congress also had all the intelligence information that Bush and Cheney had including Israel, Briton and Egypt. What was later determined was Iraq was in shambles and Saddam Hussein was afraid he was going to be attacked from Iran, which they share a 518k common border (remember they had a little war that lasted 8 years and was fought to a bloody draw). Hussein did not even consider the US would invade, as they did not with Bush41, but that was not the case with Iran. The false information of WMD's in Iraq, was an intelligence operation by Iraq to the purpose of which was to convince Iran not to invade. This is not to say that Cheney and the other Hawks in Washington were not looking for a reason to invade and did not question the universally consistent intelligence which should have been suspect, but it was hardly "Bush lied and people died". If this was true, why did not Cheney and Halleburton go bury some WMD's in the Iraqi desert for the military to find? This would have made Bush the hero. Your progressive narrative just doesn't make sense.

Give me a break responded:
Brad, The constitution binds us all, not just the government. It DOES empower the people to change the constitution, but not to ignore it.
On purpose, it's not easy to change ... otherwise passions of the moment would result in chaos ... the chaos that you are proposing.
I thank the forefathers for having the presence of mind to protect the country from the likes of you. I love America and will defend it from the radicals on either side!

brad responded;
It is a shame you are so ignorant of your own freedoms. The people are constrained by the rule of law, not the Constitutional restrictions from government intrusion. The first Amendment starts with, "Congress will make no law," there is no reference to the restricting the rights of the people. If you believe you have been wronged by the tyranny of the majority, an individual or corporation (if the violation does not raise to the level of a criminal statue), your redress is in Civil court, not the Constitutional constraints of the Federal Government. Please read the Federalist papers written by our founding fathers before you spout out on what the intent of our founding fathers were. Madison imagined a collection of self-governing states held together loosely by Federalism. The Constitution defined the powers and restrictions of this Federal government and it's interaction with the states. It was not until the 14th Amendment that these federal restrictions were transferred to the states (it's still an ongoing process) and Constitutional rights were applied to the citizenry. Regardless, our Constitutional rights protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government and these restrictions were never and have never been applied to the citizenry. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." How do you read that the citizenry's right to free speech and peaceably assemble is constrained by freedom of religion? Like I said before, you can't claim one right to the exclusion of the other.

September 4, 2010

Anne Marie Sorcenelli wrote:
The fact that our government is paralyzed by the tea party and the Party of No is unbelievable and unacceptable. The media is monopolized with lies, innuendo and bigoted spiels. I'm tired of being squeezed as a middle-class citizen. Health-care reform doesn't translate to any real protection from predatory practices. My health insurance was increased 40 percent September 2009 and it was increased another 13 percent yesterday. I, and many other self-employed citizens, am having trouble believing that we'll survive this mess. Our state and federal representatives have compensation and medical benefits for life. There's no real incentive to help the middle class except to benefit from their endorsements, campaign contributions and hence, their re-election. We keep hoping for change. Since industry sponsors write bills and our representatives shill them into law, our government has become a servant of industry. Most have lost faith. How do we change this system?

brad responded;
If the President were governing according to the will of the people than any party of "no" would be in the minority. The fact the Republicans popularity numbers are so high, even amongst those that are not aware of the Republicans bills that have been brought forth, can only be explained by the fact that the majority of the citizenry want to stop the Obama Juggernaut at all costs. Nancy Pelosi’s, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” And now Health and Human Services Secretary, Nancy Sebelius saying ,“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,”(As the citizenry discovers the truth and lies of healthcare reform) has made the American people wondering who is actually writing these bills. The President told us what his healthcare plan would look like and later we find out it looks nothing like he said it would, which seems consistent with most his policies and promises and proving the Democrat’s are voting on bills they know nothing about. When at anytime has re-education and re-distribution of wealth became common subjects in the American lexicon and freely discussed using positive rhetoric by the President of the United States? And yes, “The media is monopolized with lies, innuendo and bigoted spiels,” but primarily from the partisan left, which continually tells us to disagree with any left leaning policy is racism. It has become so partisan the many have started to look back at Bush 43 for guidance on how he managed a war against Islamic Terrorism, while using both terms so the world understood where our fight was and still defend the Muslin religion as peaceful and accepting. Before we can reform Washington we need to stop the bleeding, for now that means saying “no” until we can throw the bums out.

Doug Urbanus wrote:
Regarding Bill McCoy's letter, our federal Constitution is a mix of precise rules and abstract moral principles. The minimum age of our representatives is an example of a rule. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is an expression of abstract moral principle. Justice Elena Kagan in her Senate confirmation testimony considering the authors' intention said, "They didn't mean to constitutionalize all of their practices in 1868. They meant to set forth a principle of equality that would be applied over time." No matter one's politics, how the abstract moral clauses should be applied is a matter of interpretation. To complain that enacting a law to establish health insurance or indeed any law is constitutionally impermissible because it is not explicitly etched in the Constitution, reduces the Constitution to a document of dos and don'ts. Fortunately, even textualists, such as Justice Scalia, reject such a view.

brad responded;
What a bunch of Progressive pulp. Read the 10th Amendment carefully. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As much as you want to talk about the Constitution as a living, breathing document, it is nothing of the kind. It is a legal document whose precepts are to be used to weigh the formulation of new laws. The concept that Congress can force the citizenry, for the “privilege,” of living in the United States, to buy a private service is by definition fascist. The overreaching of an activist court’s use of Commerce clause, has allowed the federal government to influence practically every aspect of our lives, which is consistent with Hilaire Belloc, “The control of the production of wealth is the control of human life itself.” The Healthcare reform bill has now been declared a tax in the federal court cases now being heard in the various states that oppose it, because it would have been unconstitutional otherwise; but what tax demands that the citizenry again buy a private service (and note here that auto insurance is an aspect of the privilege to drive, not the right of federal residency). The Constitutional is not a document of Do’s and Don’ts; it is a document of the rights of the individual and restrictions on the Federal Government. The 9th Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” or the people have more rights than have been expressed in the Constitution, while the 10th Amendment says the only powers the Federal Government has are those specifically given by the Constitution and all other rights and powers are with the people. Nothing could be clearer.

rebel wrote:
Two years! That should have been plenty of time to fix all the problems generated by the abuse of the last eight! Those lazy democrats!

brad responded;
I'm still waiting to hear what we need to change that occurred during the 8 years of Bush. Is it deficits and debt? No way. Is it more regulation for Fannie and Freddie, nope, not in the Frank/ Dodd financial reform bill. Oh I know, it's the sub prime mortgages derivatives; nope still there. Is it ending a politically controlled war? Certainly not. Hey what about that nasty Patriot Act? no, still there. Oh, Oh, is it political corruption? Yeah, right.. How about the government right to assassinate American citizens any where in the world without a trail? Actually that is an Obama policy, even Bush didn't go that far. Maybe it's the sky high CEO wages and bonuses? no, pretty much the same . How about transparency and honesty in government, that's really all we want; no, still wanting. I've got it! It's 7% unemployment; that nasty President Bush just didn't care about the little guy. The truth is Presidents come and go but the entrenched policies of greed and corruption rarely change, and certainly not with Obama.

Government responded:
Brad said "The concept that Congress can force the citizenry, for the “privilege,” of living in the United States, to buy a private service is the definition of fascism. "
I don't think Brad has studied fascist governments, let alone ever lived under one. In my view, in the 20th century fascism rose in countries where the empowered few felt truly threatened by a coming revolutionary change in the power structure of their countries; and to turn back this change (socialism) they harnessed and promoted popular discontent and channeled it into powerful government/corporate alliance that, once entrenched, completely disempowered the individuals that they had harnessed to support it.
One can certainly dislike the idea that one might be required to buy private insurance - one can argue its propriety (or even its constitutionality) but tying it to "fascism" is so out of the blue!!!!!
Wacky!

brad responded;
If this is truly your understanding of fascism, then this forum does not allow enough room to explain what little you know about it (sorry, but your progressive revisionist history about the rise of fascism is frustrating. In Italy the Socialist refused to take power after 1920 "occupation of the factories" by the workers, for fear they would not be able to fulfill their Utopian promises in the post war chaos; this left the door open for Mussolini's Fascist party to take control two years later); 20th Century fascism was the revolutionary change, supposedly resulting from failed lassie fare Capitalism and a refusal of the Socialist to take power. Mussolini described his form of fascism as corporate government;it is a form of government that swallows up labor unions and any other impediments to production and creates state sponsored industries. Fascism is government run like a corporation where the economy is planned and truth is relative to the State’s perceived needs of the collective. Ron Paul has rightly described Obama as a corporatist. FDR had a fascination with fascism and particularly an admiration for Mussolini. “Comparisons are drawn between the cartelisation of Italian industry by Mussolini and the 'cartelisation' of American industry by Roosevelt under the National Recovery Act. Most fascist governments adopted economic policies favorable to big business”(Wiki); tell me how this is not the same as Obama's taking control of 2/3 of the American auto industry. There is also his back room deals with Big Pharma, Healthcare insurance companies and Medicare providers. In no other form of government besides fascism do you have forced consumption from a private entity; in socialism these entities are the government (they only exception to this was a short period of time under Lenin when he embraced a more corporate view until all industry was eventually nationalized; this blending of Marxism and fascism is sometimes referred to as neo-Leninism). The Healthcare reform system creates a defacto collective, under the guise of equal care and the elimination of competitiveness. In regards to your original concept that fascism was a reaction to socialism and not a form of socialism, I’ll leave you with the words of F. A. Hayek, “There is a great deal of truth that in the often heard statement that fascism and National Socialism are a sort of middle-class socialism- only that in Italy and Germany the supporters of these new movements were hardly in the middle class any longer. It was to a large extent a revolt of the new underprivileged class against the labor aristocracy, which the industrial labor movement had created.”

brad wrote:
If the President were governing according to the will of the people than any party of "no" would be in the minority.

uh Clem responded
Exactly. The "Party of No" will be the Party of November

You belcha responded:
right after you produce them WMDs.

brad responded;
We found the WMDs, apparently they were hiding in Obama's stimulus plan.

Letter to the Editor

Where are the Bridges and Dams?

What ever happened to the Presidents stimulus plan? You know the plan that was going to fund those shovel ready projects. Well, it turned out the stimulus wasn’t really a stimulus at all. Rather the stimulus was written by the ultra-left Apollo Alliance (a project of George Soros’ Tides Center, with Van Jones on the steering committee) to fund those areas of the economy that met with their political agenda. Even Paul Krugman had to agree, “..for all the talk of a failed stimulus, if you look at government spending as a whole you see hardly any stimulus at all.” No bridges, no dams, no highways and no jobs; apparently it was more important for the Apollo Alliance to fund its progressive agenda, than to create jobs and improve the economy, which makes this the coming attraction for Cap and Trade.

America Prepares For Fascisim

I have written several articles about fascism and have explained how certain policies could result in a fascist America. The intent of this blog is to specifically list President Obama's policies and congressional bills and how they will lead to a fascist state. Over the next months and years you will hear terms like socialized capitalism, and social justice; these are just euphemisms used by Progressives for fascism. To better understand you also need to keep in mind that the Progressive agenda is based on Marxism. If there is one term that is synonymous with both Progressivism and Marxism it is science. Progressive strongly believe that the collective is unable to make informed and critical decisions, so the state must make these decisions for them. Current Intellectuals like Cass Sunstein (an Obama Czar) stress incrementalism or to nudge the citizenry in the right direction in all areas including, " education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness..”. Again, since the beliefs and policies of the Progressive movement is thought to be rooted in science, they are freed from any morality or value system to carry out their plans for utopia and socialism.

Control of business and unions.

1. President Obama took over GM and Chrysler and handed then over to the unions; 17.5% GM and 65% Chrysler. Both are being run by CEO's installed by the Federal Government. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where the government will continue to team up with the unions and and extend hegemony over all unionized business in the US. In fascism the government creates a commission to address all union matters and decide issues; the commissions decisions are final and not negotiable.

2. One of President Obama's agenda items is called “guaranteed income stream” of a Federal Guaranteed Return Annuity. These are mandatory retirement accounts, were a portion of your retirement will be placed in an account backed by US Treasury Bonds. Then when you retire, you will receive a fixed amount for life. The reason for this is diabolical. There is close to $10 trillion out there in private and public retirement and pension funds in the US. The way the US pays for it's debt is to sell treasury bonds (i.e. Savings Bonds). So, the Federal Government is going to force the citizenry to buy it's debt. The original plan is to mandate 15% of your retirement funds must go into this government annuity, but one suspects this will grow. As Duke in the Doonebarry comic strip once said, “Besides, the pension fund was just sitting there” .

3. In the area of Cap and Trade, it appears the Senate will not produce a bill any time soon, but that has not stopped the President.. On Dec 9, 2009 Environmental Protection Agency officials said that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide endanger people's health. Using this “endangerment finding”, the EPA overcame a hurtle placed by the US Supreme Court before it could regulate C02. In a move out of the fascist play book, the President has directed the EPA to bypass Congress and strong arm cities into investing in Cap and Trade; a scheme that will bring all business under federal control and cost the country tax payers $500 billion @ year conservatively. This area of fascism also demonstrates the use of science which is typical of socialism. It is surprising how quickly intellectuals and scientist jump on the band wagon to scientifically prove aspects of a planned society and fascism. Everything from Eugenics to fascism being the inevitable result of evolved capitalism and the free market, was shown to be scientifically proven in Germany and Italy. The idea that science is somehow more objective and immune from the political pressures of social and economic planners is a pit we continue to where we continually fall; even to this day.
   

The end result is the state being in complete control of the means of production. One of the keys to fascism is controlled capitalism, where the state is responsible for remove any and all impediments. With elimination of trade unions and class conflict, industry is free to explore any avenue of production without being hindered. Add to this the government being in complete control of retirement and pension funds, the workers will be beholding to the State for every aspect of his employment. President Obama's end around on Cap and Trade is reminiscent of FDR. Much like Rahn Emanuels, "Never let a crisis go to waste", FDR pushed through the NRA that was a fascist take over of industry in the US.

Control of the Banking system

1. As a result of the TARP buy out, the US Treasury silently included what is referred to as an “explicit guarantee”. Meaning the Treasury will back the banks to the tune of $27.3 trillion for any future debts they may incur; with this extent of this pending liability, the government should have unfettered influence on the banks.

Our current banking system with the Federal Reserve has the framework of fascism already in place; someone would say the Federal Reserve is already an operating fascist entity. With fascism in place, all semblance of an independent banking system will disappear and the banks will simply become an annex of the government and every aspect of the economics of the state will be planned and controlled.

Media and Information control

1. Seemingly without any prodding the main stream media, with the exception of Fox news have been biased toward President Obama at a scale never seen before. Further, with Cass Sustein, the Information and Regulatory Czar, we have an ideologue who appears to accept the extremest Constitutional theory the First Amendment was meant for politicians in Congress and not the American citizens . He has written a now infamous white paper calling for censorship of any individual or group stating he, “doubt(s) whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals”.

2. The Federal Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is on it's way to becoming law and has prescribed (from Mother Jones) new Presidential powers to shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." Further, the bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Thomas Jefferson said "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." That is why all tyrannical governments always target radio and TV stations. It has been said that Stalin and Hitler, "were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only". Unfortunately censorship can be self imposed, proving there is no difference between censorship at the barrel of a gun or the result of a closed mind. As fascism takes control, the press will be attacking straw man enemies, while the State will always be presented in a manner favorably to the State. It will be media's job to present fascism as the personification of the needs and love of the people; Mussolini "For us the nation is not just territory but something spiritual... A nation is great when it translates into reality the force of its spirit".

The End of Individualism

1. In order for fascism to take hold, collectivism must replace Individualism. Of all the freedoms in our current society, this will be the most problematic. The avenue of choice here by the Progressives appear to be healthcare. The current healthcare reforms are specifically designed to devalue individualism. The goal has always been single payer, where the government controls the health needs of all citizens; even the so called public option, was simply designed to create a incremental step toward single payer, where none existed before. Once single payer is initiated, the American will have surrendered their individualism and joined the collective. Care will be dolled out and rationed according to the individual value to the state; the plan also includes the government having access to banking accounts and medical records. As with all collective healthcare systems, the higher quality of care must be reduced to accommodate greater demand on the system. The collective citizen's health, diet, exercise and general quality of life will be dictated by the benevolent State, that is supposedly unbiased toward the betterment and health of the State , of which the collective is part.
   

In a collective society, the State defines the value system. In fascism, the State is able to end class conflict by cementing the individual into their class. As opposed to a workers revolution, fascism is more often supported by the middle class, that fears a loss of it's status in a crisis. In the long run, fascism attempts to creates a stable government, where class position in society is secure and permanent. Your value as a person is your value to the State; to each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.

I did not create a separate heading for indoctrination, as the Progressives have been in charge of education since their inception, and tacit revisionist history is already pervasive. In order for a society born of individualism to become a collective, the Progressives have re-written history to down play the positives effects of individual freedom and liberty, which has made the American people the most prosperous people in history. The interjection of Progressive policies especially in the 20th century has been an object failure, so in a form of historical misdirection, the Progressive educational system attempts to take credit for the blessings of liberty and freedom. Cass Sustein presents this Orwellian worldview best when he says, "There is no liberty without dependency”.

Cass Sunstein: Obama's Truth Czar

Cass Sunstien is President Obama's Czar of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that “people” (not him of course) as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to “nudge” them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as“ education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness..”; yes happiness, government knows better than you, what direction you need to be nudged to be happy. Sunstien also believes there are problems with the concept of freedom of speech. Sunstien believes that citizens with mutual interests, should not exchange ideas as “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another.” Sunstien basically believes that the government needs to control the information you hear and that he “doubt(s) whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals”.

The following is another example; "conspiracy theories are a subset of the large category of false beliefs, and also of the somewhat smaller category of beliefs that are both false and harmful. Consider, for example, the beliefs that prolonged exposure to sunlight is actually healthy and that climate change is neither occurring nor likely to occur. These beliefs are (in our view) both false and dangerous, but as stated, they do not depend on, or posit, any kind of conspiracy theory. We shall see that the mechanisms that account for conspiracy theories overlap with those that account for false and dangerous beliefs of all sorts, including those that fuel anger and hatred". Here, Sunstein seems to be insisting that one plus one equals three, and if you don't agree, you have dangerous beliefs. Why someone would write that prolonged exposure to the sun is a problem belief (it isn't) or that anyone denies that climate changes (they don't), shows that government defining a belief they determine both false and harmful, is completely arbitrary.

Sunstien further says the Constitution is a hindrance to his ideology and belief that, “There is no liberty without dependency”. Let me say that again, “There is no liberty without dependency”. No one with this belief belongs anywhere near the President of the United States. The only way it could happen, is if the President believes it also. Now, the reason I say this, is because President Obama was a Constitutional scholar and views the Constitution flawed; he stated, “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf”. Here, Pres Obama is being intellectually dishonest because, the Constitutional is nothing near a “charter of negative liberties”, unless you believe that “there is no Liberty without dependency”. The only true “negative liberties” in the Constitution are the protections it gives us from a tyrannical government.

Sunstein has said, “If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected”. In other words, only the government can protect your freedom and liberty and; “Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the fisc (services supported by taxes) ”. What Sunstein and the President seem to be ignoring is that the American citizenry have tasked government to protect us. We should be as dependent on government as a business owner is dependent on an employee. But, for this to have any meaning, than the American people need to have the ability to protect itself without government, this is specifically why our founding fathers guaranteed citizens the right to bare arms. To allow any politician to say we need to protect our Second Amendments rights by allowing firearms for sport and hunting, completely mis-states the meaning of the Constitution. It's pretty clear, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. Our founding fathers wanted us to have firearms to protect ourselves and the liberty guaranteed in the Constitution. The meaning of Militia is an army made up of citizenry, not trained soldiers. There is no reason why any sane and law abiding citizen should not have access to a military rifle and be part of a local militia.

Sunstein's war on the First Amendment is particularly extreme against conspiracy theorists. Sunstein believes that conspiracy theorists are dangerous, “and raise significant challenges for policy and law”. He defines "extreme conspiracy theories" to include, " the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy; that doctors deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus, ; that the 1996 crash of TWA was caused by a US military missile; (or) that the theory of Global Warming is a deliberate fraud”. Oops, well I guess 3 out of 4 ain't bad; apparently he wrote this before the hacked emails showed some “deliberate fraud” going on with amongst the Global Warming scientists. There's a problem defining what is appropriate for the American citizen to believe; the government may just wind up being wrong, usually is, and many times the censoring is deliberate; it's called fascism.

Since, as I explained before, Sunstein believes the idea that , “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another”, is bad and does not serve “democratic goals”, then this kind of free exchange of ideas needs to be subverted by the government. Sunstein's method for this is called, “Cognitive Infiltration”; defined as not just the “1960s-style of infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information” but rather, “breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.” Does this sound like an America you want to live in? Sunstein explains his plan in detail, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real space groups and try to undermine percolating conspiracy theories.” If you haven't figured this out yet, what Sunstein is talking about is using the tactics the FBI used in the 50's and 60's to undermine the communist party, the civil rights movement and anti-war demonstrators. There was evidence that the agents not only infiltrated these groups, but helped to increase their radicalization and incite them to escalate their levels of violence. It was illegal then and it is illegal now; and again it is the definition of fascism.

But Sunstein is an intellectual and a scholar, I'm sure these ideas and concepts were written decades ago, and he was dealing with the purely theoretical; yes this was written all the way back in 2008. The only way we can protect ourselves from those who want to destroy our country is to stay informed, get involved, vote for representatives that believe them same as you, and continue to exercise the freedoms and liberty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution; as the saying goes, use it or lose it.

The Fascism of Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi continues to show herself as one of the most condescending and hypocritical members of Congress to date. The current Speaker of the House and the first woman to hold this position has continued to show time after time, her belief that the American taxpayer is incapable of independent thought. Any disagreement by a group of Americans against the policies of Nancy Pelosi has been met with allegations that the unwashed masses don't know what's good for them and as Bill Maher once said about Single Payer Health Care; “You can't get Americans to agree on anything. Sixty-percent? Sixty-percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they're stupid. Just drag them to this." When confronted with mounting resistance to ObamaCare, she referred to the protests at the Town Hall Meetings as Astroturf, meaning;

"those not interested in health insurance reform are disrupting public meetings and not allowing concerned constituents to ask questions and express their views. Many of these opponents who are shutting down civil discussion are organized by out-of-district, extremist political groups, and industry-supported lobbying firms." However in the same breath she says, “Successful, informative constituent meetings are being headlined by Democrats across the country.”

One is left with two possibilities; either she simply can not believe that anyone can see significant flaws in the workings of the Democrats in Congress, or she believes that any disagreements by her constituency is beneath her; the later would seem more likely. This of course is nothing new. Whenever Speaker Pelosi's rhetoric runs contrary to fact or reality, she simply states the absurd and presents it as fact. Such was her seemingly incompatible views on abortion rights and her professed Catholicism. Speaker Pelosi, in an interview with Tom Brokaw was asked “when” her faith believes life begins; her response was “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.” When Brokaw brought to her attention that it is common knowledge that the Catholic church believes life starts at conception, she compounded her hypocrisy in the area, by saying, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” The responses from Catholics reached Pope Benedict himself, who stated after a hearing with Ms Pelosi, that all Catholics—especially legislators, jurists and political leaders—should work to create "a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development." Pope Benedict has written at length that the greatest threat to Catholicism in the United States is “Relativism”, meaning Catholics who choose only that part of their faith that is convenient or fits their world view; apparently he was thinking of Speaker Pelosi at the time.

In her acceptance speech as speaker, Ms Pelosi stated, "In order to achieve a new America, we must return this House to the American people. So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history. This new Congress doesn't have two years or 100 days to renew itself”. It is interesting to note after almost two years, and numerous ethics violation, not one member of the house has been disciplined. The glaring example is Rep Charles Rangel. Rep Rangel is Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee; the committee that writes the tax code. The New York Post reported that he had bought a Caribbean Villa with an interest free loan given to him by one of his political donors. He then failed to report the loan and income from renting the Villa ($75,000), not only on his congressional disclosure forms, but also on his state or federal income taxes. Interestingly enough, Rep Rangel called for his own investigation on this and other violations, but Speaker Pelosi has refused to have him step down from his post, nor has Rep Rangel been disciplined in any way.

Speaker Pelosi was also become a critic of the coercive interrogation techniques used on terrorists. Speaker Pelosi gives a Clintonize ( I did not have sexual relations with that woman) explanation on what when she wasn't briefed:

When my assistant told me that the committee had been briefed -- now, I'm not on that committee any more. I'm now out of it. We have a new -- that ranking member wrote the appropriate letter to protest that, but the committees can look into and see the timing of who knew what and when and what the nature of the briefing was. I have not been briefed as to what they were briefed on in February. I was just briefed that they were informed that some of the enhanced situations were used”.

So for political reasons, Speaker Pelosi is throwing the CIA members who protected us after 911 under the bus. Did they go too far? Probably. Should we have invaded Iraq? Probably not. Was Speaker (then Rep) Pelosi, as a high ranking member of the House Intelligent Committee September 2002), briefed in coercive interrogation techniques? Of course. Is Speaker Pelosi misleading Americans and then recklessly charging the CIA with deliberate misconduct to cover her tracks (as factcheck.org asks)? What do you think?

Speaker Pelosi was represented the Cap and Trade Bill as a jobs bill. Cap and Trade is a tax based on the belief the human produced carbon dioxide causes Global Warming (aka the Green House Effect). While there is no doubt of the existence of Green House Effect, the last decade has thrown a monkey wrench in the computer models that were meant to predict an expedited increase in the Green House Effect caused by rising C02 levels, refereed to as Global Warming. Twenty years ago, earth temperatures were indeed warming and there was increased pressure on Climatologist to prove the connection between C02 levels Global Warming. Unfortunately for the scientist, temperatures have actually decreased on the last 10 years, causing the political pundits to change the name, Global Warming to Climate Change. The current computer models have been able to show that any and all climate conditions are the negative results of rising C02 levels; this is the definition of dogma, not science.

Well what about the jobs? Ed Histrodt; from TheNewAmerican.com;

You may have seen Nancy Pelosi jumping up and down like a junior high-school cheerleader and shouting “Jobs, jobs, jobs!” when she promoted Cap and Trade on the House floor. Wasn’t the bill about saving the planet, not a jobs bill?

It’s more likely that “green jobs” refers to new jobs in the massive bureaucracies necessary to issue emission allocations and police the energy used by all American businesses, and, doubtlessly soon, American households. (The equipment is already in limited use in the U.K. to monitor household electrical usage.) The Energy Police would not only have to monitor use, but also ascertain that the credits being sold were from bona fide “renewable” sources or determine that the originator wasn’t really cheating on that end of the transaction — a daunting task even for a massive bureaucracy".

From an article by Speaker Pelosi, "I believe we have to [pass a cap-and-trade bill] because we see that as a source of revenue," she said, noting that “proposed cap-and-trade bills would raise billions of dollars by forcing major emitters to buy credits to release greenhouse gases”.

President Obama has said that Cap and Trade will necessarily make gasoline prices “skyrocket”. What Cap and Trade does is allow the government to tax anything that produces carbon dioxide, such a breathing. None of the green jobs promised exist or are even on the drawing board. The point of Cap and Trade, is to make our current use of resources so expensive, that it is expected that innovation will supply the option. No matter the endgame, is the government that will tax and control the means of production.

Dr Steve Runnings, is a co-author of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and founder of the Climate Change Studies program at the University of Montana. Dr Runnings has stated, “If the US passed a cap and trade and other countries did not, it wouldn’t work. It would ruin the US economy and it wouldn’t save the climate either. So this is a global issue, the global climate statistics are global in nature, global carbon emissions are global in nature, and we really have to have an international consensus of what to do. That is going to stretch our international diplomacy to its limit, there’s no doubt about that.” That's right Speaker Pelosi, it's all about, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs”

If there is a final chapter in the emergence of fascism in American it would be the Democratic health care reform debate. The President was attacked every aspect of the current healthcare industry to try and convince the American people that the only solution is a government controlled Single Payer Plan; being presented now as a Public Option or ObamaCare. The President has said that doctors would rather cut off patients feet than treat Diabetes, that private health care 's mission is to take your money and deny services, and charged the big drug companies have successfully lobbied to eliminate drug price bargaining (Pres Obama has since made a deal with big pharmaceutical; they help fund OmabaCare with $80 billion and he will end Medicare (and Obamacare) drug bargaining. The plan on it's face makes no sense; it will still leave 30 million uninsured, with no contingent plan for 20 million illegal aliens; the first five years will be paid for by money saved over the previous 10 years; and 50% of the program will be funded by cutting $500 billion from Medicare, without cutting Medicare coverage (we already know drug prices are going to go up).

Speaker Pelosi has been front and center with her support for a public health plan and believes that if any American Tax payer does not share her support for the public option, they are weak minded and have been led astray by talk radio and FOX News. Speaker Pelois is so condescending that she believes all that is necessary is to change the name of the “Pubic Option” to the “Consumer Option”, than all the resistance to the Public Option would disappear. In the same speech, she said she wanted people to think about it as "their consumer option, because public is being misrepresented as being something that's paid for by taxpayer dollars, which it is not'' and that health reform would “actually improve Medicare coverage for seniors.” Apparently the Speaker has been on the public dole for so long, that she has forgotten that every cent that the government uses is paid for by taxpayers. Of course, a month ½ earlier she said, “Half the bill will be paid for by squeezing excesses out of the [Medicare and Medicaid] system, and there is $500 billion dollars to do that and we’re looking for more.” Only a politician with lifetime private health insurance paid by the government could make such claims. This of course comes after plans of taxing existing private health care plans and a value added tax (a federal income tax).

What is known is that most of the Public Health care promises are smoke and mirrors. From an article by Robert Samuelson; “Public Plan: Delusion in Health Care Debate”:

“The public plan's low costs would be artificial. Its main advantage would be the congressionally mandated requirement that hospitals and doctors be reimbursed at rates at or near Medicare's. These are as much as 30 percent lower than rates paid by private insurers, says the health care consulting firm Lewin Group. With such savings, the public plan could charge much lower premiums and attract lots of customers. But health costs wouldn't subside; hospitals and doctors would offset the public plan's artificially low reimbursements by raising fees to private insurers, as already occurs with Medicare. Premiums would increase because private insurers must cover costs to survive.

As for administrative expenses, any advantage for the public plan is exaggerated, say critics. Part of the gap between private insurers and Medicare is statistical illusion: Because Medicare recipients have higher average health expenses ($10,003 in 2007) than the under-65 population ($3,946), its administrative costs are a smaller share of total spending. The public plan, with younger members, wouldn't enjoy this advantage.”

In other words the Medicare overhead advantage (3%) over private insurers (13%) is obtained by comparing apples to oranges; the public plan will likely have a similar overhead as the private insures of today. Finally:

The promise of the public plan is a mirage. Its political brilliance is to use free-market rhetoric (more "choice" and "competition") to expand government power. But why would a plan tied to Medicare control health spending, when Medicare hasn't? From 1970 to 2007, Medicare spending per beneficiary rose 9.2 percent annually compared to the 10.4 percent of private insurers - and the small difference partly reflects cost shifting. Congress periodically improves Medicare benefits, and there's a limit to how much squeezing reimbursement rates can check costs. Doctors and hospitals already complain that low payments limit services or discourage physicians from taking Medicare patients.

The only way we have to estimate the future cost of health care in the past; and the past shows the so called skyrocketing health care costs rose similarly with Medicare. Samuelson went on to say the reason Medicare can keep it's cost down, is they can mandate low reimbursement rates; without which, “the public plan would founder”. And an advantage not given to private insurers.

Perhaps the greatest indicator of fascism is the size of the lie. Speaker Pelosi and Pres Obama seem to have no respect for the American citizen. In their world view, individual freedom and liberty must make way for collectivism; that the needs of the many now supersede the needs of the individual. When faced with the moral values of her religion, she defers to as a need of the state. When faced with the needs of the free market, she points to nationalizing the means of production as a need of the state. When faced with capitalism and the free market, they point to re-distribution of wealth as a need of the state. This has all been tried before; it is the fascism playbook, word for word, and it has never been successful and always resulted in tyranny. But their unending narcissism makes them believe that this time they'll get it right. They praise the ideas of Marx, and Mao, and now Chavez and Castro. Hopefully the American people will not forget what it is that makes America great. It's not hard, because it is written in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Our founding fathers battled tyranny and created the greatest country that has ever been. Let's not return the country to tyranny, because, the day will come when we'll want liberty again, and history has shown that only through the loss of life and limb can liberty be gained. It would be tragedy of unimaginable sacrifice, the sacrifices of our forefathers, that will be needed again.