The Observation Deck

Richard Cole wrote:

Roy Pitchford wrote:I see my nation, one founded on freedom and liberty, slowly turning into a fascist regime where the state has control over everything, from industry to our bodies and our minds.

Roy - this is an interesting statement. I know it's off-topic and probably doesn't belong on here, but would you care to expand how we're turning into a fascist regime, without quoting Beck 'n' Buddies.

First, let's define fascism:

Merriam-Webster wrote:1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

So, if I read that right: a strong central government and a leader with unlimited power which puts the collective before the individual, has strict economic and social regulation and prevents the opposition from gaining enough power to challenge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1: Strong central government
The duties of the US government are defined with the Constitution and many (but not all) of its amendments. Education, health care, welfare (as we know it), environmental protection and a massive number of other things that the US government has taken on are not spend out by the Constitution and, thus, should fall to the states under the provisions of the 10th Amendment. Our central government has gradually been taking more and more power for itself.
Only recently have states started to push back, such as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which flies in the face of a Supreme Court ruling regarding the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn) regulation of intra-state commerce.

Part 2: A leader with unlimited power
The president (not just Obama) has slowly been accumulating more and more power for himself, to the point that he can get around Congress to do things. Let's see some examples:

• An extensive Cap and Trade bill was put forth by Henry Waxman and was passed in the House. It has so far failed to pass the Senate. In response, the EPA, at the direction of the Obama administration, is set to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
• Attempts have been made to decide on regulating the internet. Neither the House nor Senate have been able to come up with anything, so it was turned over to the FCC.
• In the State of the Union, Obama himself declared that since the Senate had been unable to act in creating a Debt Commission for him, he would sign an executive order.
• Card check, which would do away with the secret ballot in union formation (among other things, can't get past the Senate. Obama then turned to an appointment of a Card check supporter named Craig Becker and his appointment was blocked. Obama could still use a recess appointment to put the man in place.

Part 3: Collective before the individual
I could look a bunch of stuff up, but I think something I've pulled together once before will do the job just fine:

roy pitchford wrote:"Because every old person was once young, an emphasis on life-years does not discriminate against anyone; the very people who lose when older also gained when younger...in producing regulatory impact analysis...agencies should inquire into life-years, and take into account of that inquiry in deciding what to do."
--Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs--

"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men."
--John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
--John Holdren

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility--just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns--providing they are not denied equal protection."
--John Holdren

"Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."
--Ezekiel Emanuel, health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal--whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each--is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated."


"Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" The Lancet, January 31, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html

Oh, 2 more words: wealth redistribution.

Part 4: Economic and Social Regulation
Wilson created the Federal Reserve.
FDR created the SEC.
Obama has the Debt Commission (mentioned above).
Through its use of bailouts, the Obama administration picked and chose which companies were given a chance to succeed and which had to fail.
The government owns banks via the bailouts, plus 2 of 3 automotive companies.
Those same automotive companies (along with anyone else that wishes to sell in the US) are regulated to the hilt for emissions.
It has its arms up to its elbows in housing through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
They're trying to get into health care through the bill to be voted on tomorrow. Several people have said this is just the beginning. Maybe its just foreshadowing we get from VP Biden when he says, "You know we’re going to control the insurance companies."
Oh, let's not forget tomorrow's bill also has Education ramifications...no more private loans for education. It will all go through the government.
I'm sure I missed something, but this is good for now, I think.

Part 5: Prevention of Opposition
There's been talk about a revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
Fox News is deemed to "not be a news organization" by several members of the administration.
Nancy Pelosi's attempts to marginalize opposition by referring to the Tea Party and related groups as "astro-turf".
Ignoring the will of the people who, to the tune of 60+%, are against this health bill.


Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering.

Now, do you feel I've got a case for saying we are heading in the direction of fascism?

When I drive down I-90 to Crocker Park, I'm headed in the direction of California. Ain't ever gonna make it there, though.

Brian Pedaci wrote:When I drive down I-90 to Crocker Park, I'm headed in the direction of California. Ain't ever gonna make it there, though.

slacker!

We have many laws on the books that are meant to protect us from the Government thinking it is above the will of the people and the founding principles. The problem is when these same legislators have to police themselves.
~~~
U.S Constitution:
The Executive Branch
Article 2, Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
~~~~
The following are just a few big bribes that we know of for votes.

-$300 million in extra Medicaid aid for Louisiana, which had helped win support for the Senate health bill from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. The state is still struggling to recover from Hurricane Katrina.
(No it's not - The state has the 10th lowest unemployment rate and was the only state to add non-farm jobs in February 2009, Sales tax collections in New Orleans have risen close to levels seen before Katrina. And foreclosure rates have remained low by national standards, in part because the state never experienced a housing bubble. They have problems, but so does every other state in a severe recession)

-Keeps $100 million included in the Senate bill that is expected to go for a public hospital in Connecticut sought by Dodd, who is retiring.

The fact is, any and all bribery for votes should disqualify these "representatives," but who's gonna call them on it? The president? Themselves?

I get your point Roy. Directionally, it is Nanny Government oriented, and not individual and competition oriented- and I find that troubling. Whether it qualifies as fascism at this point, maybe not quite.

Later today we will see the official self-destruction of the (late great) Democratic Party. They had a good run, but if this travesty Health Tax passes, then that pesky 60% of the country which they are wholesale ignoring - will rise against them.
Talk about Change.

Change we can believe in

1)The bribes to get health care passed.
2)What did the Democrats know and when did they know it about Eric Massa.
3)ACORN
4)Kevin Jennings’ appointment
5)The Sestak promises
6)The Andrew Romanoff promises
7)Barack Obama’s foreign campaign donors and what happened with that money
Obstruction by the DOJ of North Carolina’s non-partisan elections laws
9)DOJ lawyers who represented GTMO detainees
10)Democratic congressional staffers disrupting Republican offices in 2006 in Colorado

Bush is the one that started the bailout, just to set the record straight. And don't forget the Patriot Act.

sharon kinsella wrote:Bush is the one that started the bailout, just to set the record straight. And don't forget the Patriot Act.

Thanks Sharon... more things to add to the diminishing Hope and Change list...

sharon kinsella wrote:Bush is the one that started the bailout, just to set the record straight. And don't forget the Patriot Act.

This road to fascism started long both before Obama and Bush. Bush did his share.
If you want to view that as me agreeing with you, so be it.
Woodrow Wilson, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson (probably Jimmy Carter too) and a lot of other administrations/Congresses have had a hand in this.

Brian Pedaci wrote:When I drive down I-90 to Crocker Park, I'm headed in the direction of California. Ain't ever gonna make it there, though.

Ever play Oregon Trail?
Sure you will. It will take a while, you'll make some stops along the way, maybe a wrong turn or two, sometimes you'll be on the highways, sometimes on the slower city streets, but if you keep in the same general direction you'll eventually make it there.
You'll have to overcome the Rocky Mountains. That might be the toughest part of the trip.

Let's use that analogy though...
This country is driving on a vacation. Us children are in the back seat, fast asleep. Bush started driving us to Houston, but he wants to stay on the city streets and slightly faster state highways. Less tolls. See more of the country. Obama's never seen Disneyand and decides that we'll never get where he wants to go on vacation unless he takes over the driving. Somewhere in Illinois, he puts us on I-94 heading due west. The roar of the engine as it accelerates wakes the children up. Expecting to be going to Houston, they are surprised when they see the Rocky Mountains and Harry Reid's Nevada.
We never really wanted to see Disneyland OR Houston. We were happy to stay home and visit the Rock Hall, or maybe head east and visit historic Philadelphia or Boston. Our old dad, Ronny, promised us a trip there.

So the Tea Partiers are essentially sleepy, whiny children who missed the point in the trip where a majority of the passengers in the car voted to put Obama in the driver's seat, knowing full well that meant we'd be heading westward? Well put, sir.

Brian Pedaci wrote:So the Tea Partiers are essentially sleepy, whiny children who missed the point in the trip where a majority of the passengers in the car voted to put Obama in the driver's seat, knowing full well that meant we'd be heading westward? Well put, sir.

Maybe daddy should quit drinking the bong water and get back to reality before he crashes the car..


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

As the House prepares to vote on the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats, just 41% of voters favor the plan while 54% are opposed. Those figures include 26% who Strongly Favor the plan and 45% who are Strongly Opposed. Most voters believe it will raise the cost of health care and reduce the quality of care. Still, nearly two-out-of-three voters believe it is at least somewhat likely to pass and become law.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16

Less than a third of the US adult popualtion voted for Obama in the 2008 election....

I just do not understand the premise for this particular discussion at all.

I have a degree in Political Science, awarded with honors. I think I have a pretty good idea what fascism is supposed to be. (and no, I will not capitalize that term)

So does my dad, in fact, and so do his brothers-in-arms- the other veterans from WWII, who saved a world from that scourge.

They were fighting fascism, and they knew, even more than I do, (with my comparatively insignificant college degree) EXACTLY what fascism was...

...and they destroyed it.

Completely.

Try telling any of them that they did NOT do that....

They do not need a dictionary to tell them what it was, either. They found out what it was- in places like Tunisia, and in Sicily, and on Anzio Beach, and at Normandy....
...and of course, at the concentration camps they discovered; as the allied armies advanced.

Fascism was a term, technically used, to describe certain types of right-wing dictatorships that cooperated with private industry, but to our soldiers and their allies, it was much more than that...

It's not a term that I've EVER heard used historically, either, with respect to the political left. That seems to be a strange and recent polemical development, and that stretch of definition makes no sense to me at all.

Some people these days seem to want to think that the current administration is somewhat liberal, left, or whatever... on the one hand, while on the other, perhaps claiming that some form of creeping fascism might also be either on their agenda, or perhaps with our government's executive branch generally?

To me that is just patently absurd drivel.

Period.

It's like saying that oil is water.

The logic simply appears to be missing, because I can't find any academic premise for their argument at all.

Relax. The country has had many presidents. The Republic will survive. There's room under our tent for many different ideas...but...

No one's going to bring back fascism around here.

Not if my dad and his buddies from World War II ever have anything to say about it.

Back to the banjo...

Alright Gary. If what I described is not fascism, what is it? Its certainly NOT what our Founder's had in mind for us.

I think it's simply the dynamics of a great democracy in action, Roy, that's all.

Actually, our founding fathers agreed about very little, indeed. You had this huge debate about federal power going on even then, and it hasn't let up a bit, has it?

The founding fathers certainly did not approve of political parties, and yet... those sprung out of exactly the type of debate that we are having this morning.

You know the old saying, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Voltaire, about disagreeing with somebody, but defending their right to speak?

We do have to defend each other's right to our opinions and speech, no matter how disagreeable they may seem.

But at the same time. if we propose to state a fact, we'd better be prepared to prove that it's a fact.

As long as we CAN speak and write our minds as we are doing this morning, our country will be fine.

Too many brave men and women fought too many wars to make sure that we'll be able to continue doing exactly that.

Back to the banjo...

(Gotta let that freedom RING!)

And that is why Gary Rice and Stan Austin are my pretend boyfriends.

Let's do a little ditty called "Peace Train" Gary and dedicate it to our fine Veteran's.

Actually Sharon,

You may be aware that Dad and I have written band marches for most of Lakewood's secondary schools, including Lakewood Catholic Academy and St. Edward High School.

Dad was an arranger, singer, and entertainer with the Army band in WWII, and is a retired Lakewood teacher.

Our big last big march that we finished was "The American Veterans' Last Salute March". It was presented to the United States, through Dennis Kucinich, and was last played at the Garfield School's Veterans' Day assembly.

Back to the banjo...