By political definition the US is now fascist, not a constitutional republic

[European blood]

Look in any textbook or encyclopedia and compare US policy (not rhetoric) to the definitions of fascism and constitutional republic. I’ll explain it here, but check my work. If at the end of your consideration, you agree that the United States of America is now a fascist state, please speak-up about it. Also, consider the policy requests at the end of the article.

Please read this article like a prima facie legal argument; that means unless you can refute the facts, they stand as our best understanding of the issue. Here, if you can’t refute the evidence that the US is now a fascist state, then accept this as your best understanding. As time passes, if evidence is brought forward to further the case for fascism or refute it, your comprehensive understanding improves. Here we go:

Definitions:

The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights.

“Constitutional republic” is a political philosophy of limited government, separated powers with checks and balances to ensure the federal government’s power stays limited within the Constitution, protected civil liberties, and elected representatives responsible to the people who retain the most political power. In the US we also embrace inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence, and creative independence to cooperatively compete for our nation’s best ideas to move forward and be rewarded.

History:

The United States was structured as a constitutional republic. Before we consider the US present condition, let us contextualize our concern from the nation’s Founders’ grave admonishments and doubts as to Americans’ ability to retain it. If you honor America at all, give their most serious warnings your full attention for the next 1,000 words spanning from Ben Franklin to Abraham Lincoln.

On September 18, 1787, just after signing the US Constitution, Benjamin Franklin met with members of the press. He was asked what kind of government America would have. Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” In his speech to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin admonished: “This [U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.” The Quotable Founding Fathers, pg. 39

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many. Let it be the study, therefore, of lawgivers and philosophers, to enlighten the people's understandings and improve their morals, by good and general education; to enable them to comprehend the scheme of government, and to know upon what points their liberties depend; to dissipate those vulgar prejudices and popular superstitions that oppose themselves to good government; and to teach them that obedience to the laws is as indispensable in them as in lords and kings.” - John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government (1787), Ch. 18.

“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits (of government) is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.” - James Madison, Federalist Paper #48, 1788.

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – James Madison, "Political Observations" (1795-04-20); also in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. IV, p. 491.

“It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolution (1798. ME 17:388)

“A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring, it is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” – James Madison, Letter to W.T. Barry (1822-08-04)

Washington made the topic of the Farewell Address he had printed and distributed as the culmination of his advice to Americans to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

Lincoln spoke in honor of the few still-living veterans of the Revolutionary War in the concise power we ascribe as one of history’s most powerful.

The following six paragraphs are from Abraham Lincoln in his Lyceum Address, January 27 1838.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide...

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

…Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”

What is the evidence for American fascism in the present?

The US brazenly violates our laws of war, both demanded by the Constitution and the UN Charter, with open invasion of Afghanistan in abject violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and their government’s agreement to help extradite Osama bin Laden upon US presentment of evidence that he was involved in any crime of UN and/or international law. The US refused both the Afghan standard legal requirement of extradition and the UN resolution for cooperation under law and attacked. The new administration of Obama does not acknowledge this illegal history, but expands the invasion and attacks Pakistan. This policy is fascist, not limited by US law.

The US openly lied about reasons to justify an attack upon Iraq, destroying any semblance of argument of “self-defense.” The Obama administration won’t acknowledge the disclosed history from our own House and Senate investigations, and violates his oath of office to prosecute clear crimes. This policy is authoritarian, fascist, and does not hold equality under just laws. It is an un-American policy by definition.

The US tortured, with Obama refusing to prosecute and giving empty rhetoric to end it. The destruction of civil liberties to enforce authoritarian government is fascist, not American.

The US lies for more war with Iran, rejecting inalienable and legal rights for Iranians. Obama continues this policy of unlawful aggression, including official policy for first-strike nuclear weapons upon conclusion that Iran poses a possible future threat to the US and/or our allies. Political leaders and corporate media ignore the ignoble history of US vicious domination of Iranian government through coup and backed invasion. Fascist policy; un-American.

The US violates numerous treaty law with WMD, and hypocritically asserts our war targets' alleged violations justify US armed attack. This rejection of limited government under the law is a fascist empire on the loose, not a law-abiding neighbor. Added hypocrisy is the psychopathic front of American political leaders as Christians.

American corporatocracy is dominated by Enron-like cartels, headed by banks receiving the transfer of TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to pay-off their gambling debts in exotic derivative markets the federal government regulates only in more empty rhetoric. This socialization of corporate-insiders’ losses is fascist, and fundamentally in opposition of the American ideal of cooperative competition on a level playing field. Obvious financial solutions for the public good are ignored in their corporate and not public policy commitment.

While our government's official line is respect for Islam, their wars betray this analysis. If extremists were the small minority, why not peacefully cooperate to marginalize and arrest those in violation of just laws? Muslims as a group are often demonized in US media, and often the entire group is branded as terrorists. For example, consider this segment from the radio talk show of Michael Savage.

The corporate media will not present such disturbing facts and analysis. Their outright lies of commission and omission are prima facie evidence of a controlled media, supported by revealed documentation from whistle-blowers. American freedom of the press is left to independent websites and those few media outlets who tolerate reporting such as you read now.

Yeah, but we’re not totally fascist! Saying the US is fascist is just not right!!!

Yes, I’ve made the case for fascism only in the area of tens of trillions of our tax dollars in the economy, Wars of Aggression based on objective lies, authoritarian disregard for crucial laws and treaties of war and moral conduct, expansion of new unlawful war into Pakistan with rhetoric leading to more war with Iran, and a corporate press who won’t communicate these “emperor has no clothes” facts until the public breaks free of their cognitive blindness to clearly embrace our new American political reality.

We still vote for Republicans and Democrats in elections, yes, in a monied system with a virtual lock against 3rd party candidates given the costs of advertising and breaking the inertia of a two-party system.

We still have Internet press where authors such as I can point to the obvious, but with documented government-organized opposition in PSYOPS to ridicule challenging voices while counting of public cognitive blindness to keep the fascism unconcealed.

Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:

Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. This investment of your time takes less than an hour and empowers you to legally stand for ending these Wars of Aggression.

Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share powerful information as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate your virtuous response to being attacked and give it in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.

Refuse and end all orders and acts associated with these unlawful wars and constant violation of treaties. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. Unlawful acts only move forward with sufficient cooperation and public tolerance. Stop cooperating with the most vicious crime a nation can commit: war.

Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. You can only understand how these wars are specifically unlawful by investing the time to do so. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R either by volunteering their name and/or responding when named are subject to prosecution after the window of T&R closes.

I conclude with the 5-minute powerful video from PuppetGov: Had enough?

Please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.

http://www.examiner.com/la-county-no...ional-republic



http://the-classic-liberal.com/american-fascism/

[YOUTUBE]vFlKJmE4gVE[/YOUTUBE]

[Anthropologique]

Indeed, corporate fascism (without the nationalist element) now rules in the U.S. The solution is (peaceful) revolution.

[Flintlocke]

There's a difference between corporatism and corporatocracy.

[Apollonaris]

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

Nov 23rd, 2011

UPDATE III: The Senate rejected the Udall amendment 38-60.

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

The answer on why now is nothing more than election season politics. The White House, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act are harmful and counterproductive. The White House has even threatened a veto. But Senate politics has propelled this bad legislation to the Senate floor.

But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.

In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown. That is an extreme position that will forever change our country.

Now is the time to stop this bad idea. Please urge your senators to vote YES on the Udall Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

UPDATE I: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.

SOURCE: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention

Nov 29th, 2011

Today, the Senate voted 38-60 to reject an important amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. The amendment offered by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power.

The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive, and the White House has issued a veto threat over the provisions.

We’re disappointed that, despite robust opposition to the harmful detention legislation from virtually the entire national security leadership of the government, the Senate said ‘no’ to the Udall amendment and ‘yes’ to indefinite detention without charge or trial.

The next opportunity to remove the harmful detention provisions from the bill will be when House and Senate conferees meet in conference committee next week.

If the conference committee fails to remove the detention provisions, President Obama should follow through with his veto threat. Today’s vote on the Udall amendment shows there’s more than enough opposition to these provisions to sustain a veto. Stay tuned for more information.

UPDATE: The vote changed from 37-61 to 38-60. The final vote is reflected in the post.

SOURCE: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senate-rejects-amendment-banning-indefinite-detention

[Apollonaris]

Showdown at Neocon Central
Newt Gingrich vs. Ron Paul

by Justin Raimondo, November 25, 2011

The Republican "national security" debate sponsored by Neocon Central the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation captured perfectly the intellectual and political bankruptcy of the Republican party when it comes to foreign policy. Here the party’s pandering demagoguery, reflexive ultra-nationalism, and visceral hostility to liberty was on full display in all its exhibitionistic belligerence. It was only natural, therefore, that the first question was asked by disgraced former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was forced to resign as Reagan’s AG as a result of his complicity in obtaining big defense contracts for a phony "minority"-owned company. Here is his "question":

"At least 42 terrorist attacks aimed at the United States have been thwarted since 9/11. Tools like the Patriot Act have been instrumental in finding and stopping terrorists. Shouldn’t we have a long range extension of the investigative powers contained in that act so that our law enforcement officers can have the tools that they need?"

What a set up for Newt Gingrich! And he certainly took advantage of it: naturally he was given the first answer –with poor Herman Cain having outlived his usefulness and been unceremoniously dumped, Newt is the "mainstream" media’s new darling. That’s because he can always be counted on to reiterate the neocons’ favorite talking points, and on this occasion he did not disappoint:

"BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, only this weekend there was an alleged terror plot uncovered in New York City. What do you think?

"GINGRICH: Well, I think that Attorney General Meese has raised a key point, and the key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements.

"I think it’s desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it’s a matter of criminal law. But if you’re trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.

"The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities."

In less than 200 words, Newt managed the wholesale bifurcation of American law into two parallel tracks, one that acknowledges how "desperately important" it is to "preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty," and the other which recognizes no such necessity – and, in fact, negates it.

Oh, isn’t he glib – isn’t he clever? With a mere sleight of hand he has obviated the Constitution and upended the legal and moral traditions of two hundred years. What an achievement! He smiles a greasy, easy grin, well-pleased with himself. The audience dutifully applauds.

"I’ve spent years studying this stuff," he adds, and one could well believe he had indeed spent years learning how to start out with a libertarian premise – "It’s desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty" – and coming out the other end with a purely authoritarian conclusion. This, as I’ve pointed out in the past, is Bizarro Conservatism – a doctrine that preaches the precise opposite of what the traditional "less government," pro-individual rights conservatives used to believe.

Newt’s clash with Ron Paul over this issue defined the parameters of the subsequent hour or so: this was the first Paul-centric debate, preceded by his rise in the polls and his increasingly important role as the ideological catalyst of this GOP presidential primary. Once again, as in the economic sphere – with even former Federal Reserve board member Herman Cain echoing Paul’s call to audit the Fed – the Texas congressman set the tone of the discussion with his ringing defense of the Founders’ concept of what freedom means:

"I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I’m concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it’s a crime and we should deal with it.

"We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh. But why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. They said, don’t be willing to sacrifice liberty for security.

"Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights."

Newt thought he’d won by making a dramatic pause and intoning:

"Yes. Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point."

Looking like a Halloween pumpkin left out in the rain, Gingrich went into novelist mode, scaring the children with the specter of "losing a major American city" and bringing his fist down hard on the podium as he thundered

"I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re going to stop you!"

Paul’s answer was perfect:

"This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don’t do it so carelessly."

In short: why not just set up a dictatorship and be done with it? Paul is too polite to point out that Newt would make the perfect dictator, strutting about the stage and puffing out his chest like a peacock on parade – so I will.

I thought I detected an elegiac note in Paul’s remarks, a sadness in his voice as he pleaded with his audience not to throw away the Founders’ gift "so carelessly." As if he fears that they probably will, anyway.

There is reason for pessimism: we are, after all, living in a time when a half-baked professional bloviator like Gingrich is considered a conservative "intellectual." With the help of the "mainstream" media – which would like nothing more than to see the singularly unattractive and baggage-laden Gingrich up against their hero Obama – the Newtster is having his moment in the sun. It will, however, be a brief moment – and he’s not really running for president anyway. Everyone knows his campaign has been a vanity project and moneymaking operation from the outset.

Quietly gaining traction, the growth and development of the Paulian movement occurring largely beneath the media’s radar, the Paul campaign has achieved tremendous gains for the peace movement in America. No matter how it ends, it has created a new chapter in the history of the foreign policy discourse in this country: anti-interventionism is no longer considered the exclusive preserve of the "radical" left. For the first time since the 1930s, the anti-imperialist tendency in American conservatism is in the ascendant: the Old Right is back, more organized and intellectually coherent than ever.

This is a development the neocons have long feared, and the vicious attacks on Paul coming from those quarters are bound to increase in number and intensity as the campaign succeeds in becoming the conservative alternative to the supposedly "inevitable" Mitt Romney.

Gingrich’s job in all this is to act as the "moderator," the Deep Thinker who polices the discussion, always on the lookout for any deviation from neoconservative orthodoxy. His role-playing is underscored by the post-debate speculation over whether he imperiled his rising star by taking a "soft" stand on immigration.

It may seem passing strange that someone so concerned about a nuclear bomb being smuggled into a major American city would take such a lax attitude about policing our borders. But that’s the Newtster for you: he can think up an argument for anything – even taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac while at the same time claiming to be in favor of abolishing it! I tell you, the man’s a genius – and if you don’t believe that, then just ask him. After all, he’s "spent years studying this stuff."

There’s nothing new in Newt’s stance on immigration: he’s been saying the same thing for years. He said at the debate he’s "willing to take the heat" on this issue because the neocons – who see America as a "universal nation," like Rome, Great Britain, and the other great empires of the past – have always been for amnestying so-called illegal aliens. On the other hand, Paul echoes the concerns of the Republican base in wondering why, when we’ve lost control of our own borders, we’re so concerned about securing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Every conservative aspirant but Paul has had his moment in the media spotlight as the rightist "alternative" to the Inevitable Romney – not, you’ll note, on account of any actual votes being cast, except in widely variable polls of oftentimes dubious provenance, but largely due to the amount of media attention lavished on them. Cain was propelled into the spotlight, and just as quickly abandoned: Perry was once hyped, and he too fell by the wayside – not to mention Bachman (and Palin) before them.

Now it’s Paul’s turn – but his rise is coming about in quite a different way, which is why it may prove more lasting than the others. That’s because his steadily rising poll numbers are due entirely to his own efforts, and the efforts of his supporters: the antiwar libertarian certainly has not gotten a push from the "mainstream" media. Quite the opposite: it got to the point where Jon Stewart was able to write an entire comedy routine around how deliberately the media was ignoring Paul.

The media Establishment’s current line on Ron Paul is that he is preparing a third-party run: that way, they don’t have to even discuss the prospect that he could mount an effective challenge to Romney. Yet the new GOP primary rules, which give proportional representation instead of "winner take all," are conducive to Paul’s steady-as-it-goes come-from-behind campaign strategy – and Iowa, where organization and dedication count most of all, is now in Paul’s sights. Independents can vote in the New Hampshire primary, and the momentum of a Paul victory in Iowa could bring in an influx of antiwar voters and give him a breakthrough victory in the “Live Free or Die” state.

Both Paul and the foreign policy issue have gotten short shrift this election season, at least so far – but so what else is new? Insofar as the latter is concerned, inattention to what would seem to be an important issue has been the norm for many years. That’s why the American people woke up, one day, to find themselves in possession of a world empire, without having any memory of having voted on it or consented to it in any way.

This election, however, may turn out different. It’s a long way to Election Day, 2012 – and in politics, a year might as well be a century. A lot can happen: for example, Israel could strike at Iran and drag us into a war that all the GOP candidates but one would reflexively support. Not that the Israelis would even think of trying to influence the outcome of the election through such a ploy – or would they?

SOURCE: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...eocon-central/

[HungAryan]

Nope.
The USA is Judeo-Bolshevism, not Fascism.
Fascism is Good, Communism is Evil.

[YOUTUBE]vl7cv8NBbmY[/YOUTUBE]
This is what fascism is. Watch this before calling anyone or anything Fascist.

[Troll's Puzzle]

By political definition the US is now fascist

only if you're using a silly 'political definition' that suits your aim (identifying what politics you don't like as 'fascist').

I've noticed this is common with americans. Unfortunately they are spreading their ignorance and simple soundbite-ism globally

Definitions:

The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance...

Well that's handy. Nice shuffle... LOL

http://the-classic-liberal.com/american-fascism

yawn...

[Apollonaris]

only if you're using a silly 'political definition' that suits your aim (identifying what politics you don't like as 'fascist').

Well, what's your definition of fascism, then? In their book, The Nazi Hydra in America, Glen Yeardon and John Hawkins offer the following analysis of fascism:

"Few other words cause more confusion … than fascism. It is often used in the sense of extreme repression. Often the understanding of fascism is limited to the Nazis and repression. The term has been applied to many individuals, such as Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and others. It is frequently - often wrongly - used to describe police and law enforcement, and government and its policies …

"What then is fascism exactly? Webster's Dictionary defines it as: 'A government system marked by a centralized dictatorship, stringent socioeconomic controls and belligerent nationalism' …

"According to [President] Franklin Roosevelt:

'The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by … a group or any controlling private power'."

They continue:

"Another good definition of fascism comes from Heywood Broun, a noted American columnist in the 1930s:

'Fascism is a dictatorship from the extreme right, or to put it a little more closely into our local idiom, a government which is run by a small group of large industrialists and financial lords … I think it is not unfair to say that any businessman in America, or public leader, who goes out to break unions is laying the foundations for fascism'."

Finally, they define fascism as

"... a repressive totalitarian regime in which a small elite controls and uses the government for their [own] benefit. Any action by the government that places the rights of a corporation or a group of elites above the rights of the people is a step toward fascism."

[Troll's Puzzle]

Well, what's your definition of fascism, then? In their book, The Nazi Hydra in America, Glen Yeardon and John Hawkins offer the following analysis of fascism:

the problem with stuff like this is they aren't scholars, they aren't historians, and they aren't even interested in an objective investigation into what it really is.

They just want to know how they can call their political opponents 'fascists', since that is the 'worst' thing to be, politically.

Another recent example is the 'Liberal Fascists' which claims Fascism is a liberal ideology, written by (suprise), an american (jewish) 'neocon'.
(in turn, he only wrote that book to turn it back on the liberal's constant use of 'fascist' to describe the republicans. such great progess, these american political philosophers bring to their art )

I wouldn't care except as a result we've had batches of (americans) going around everywhere claiming that Liberalism=Fascism, Obama is a socialist, no worse, he's a Fascist, and that socialism=fascism... all because these american propagandists are too busy trying to call their 'liberal' or 'conservative' opponents names, and the sheeple just go with it.

In the case of the book you cited, it appears to be (democrat-leaning) writers trying to smear their opponents as 'fascists'.

from the Amazon description:

A piercing study of the tenacious roots of American fascism in our plutocracy, from robber baron days to Reichstag fire to the WTC atrocity and "Homeland Security." This sweeping, 700-page documentary of the American oligarchy's century-long project for world dictatorship is bound to be a landmark in the writing of American history. Includes a blow-by-blow account of the successful fascist assault and takeover of America's media.

a reviewer writes:

Prior to reading this book I truly believed there was little difference between the two parties in this country...

However, after reading this book it became crystal clear to me that there is a huge difference between these two parties. I now know that republicans and fascists are one and the same and that the only way to fight their determination to install a US led global fascist regime is to support the democrats. This book more than any other source has opened my eyes to that truth.

The facts related in this book are chilling. The Nazis were only the most overt phenomenon of the corporate hydra engulfing the world.

someone better let Joe know the USA is a fascist country, maybe that will finally turn his opinion against it

I'd stick to actual historian/scholar descriptions and definitions of Fascism.
Such as Stanley Payne, Roger Griffin, Kevin Passmore, etc.
(actually, as a short definition, I particularly like Passmore's, so I would say that is how I define it too. You can read his definition here).

Compared to political propagandist/spinner's/conspiritard definitions, these tend to stress Nationalism as all-important in Fascism (where it isn't in the USA, which is a multicultural country, and where the republicans let in millions and millions of illegals, all the while offshoring and destroying national economic strength - not very 'nationalist' behaviour ), while downplaying the importance of corporatism in the ideology (because actually it wasn't even a core part of 'fascist' thought, unlike what american propagandists try and portray. You can read a lengthy essay about fascist economics - by a scholar, not a propagandist - here. the conclusion is there was 'no such thing as fascist economics', though, and that includes corporatism. People with a wide range of backgrounds, from socialist to capitalist, were attracted to fascism. In the end, a more 'capitalist' version won out, but the economy was alway 'pragmatic', i.e. aimed at what the practical goals of the state were (i.e. war, in Hitler's case), rather than some underlying economic philosopy).

Besides, conspiritards always overstate (in fact, to the exclusion of any other factors, i.e. the all-pervaisive nationalism) and completely misunderstand what fascist 'corporatism' actualy was about. Most glaringy, the Mussolini quote "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power" is always trotted out, but it is a BS quote, because he never said actually that.

[Joe McCarthy]

So when do we invade Ethiopia?

Does this mean I have to flash the Roman and shout Viva Obama!?

Gotta love left-wingers. They think any pol to the right of Bill Clinton is hiding his armband.