The new fascism

Does this reek of facism ,or no?You decide.
By the way,the article is by Chuck Norris.If you think hes a liar ,then feel free to tell that to his face

http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/08/02/lead_obama_not_into_temptation/page/full/



Chuck Norris
Lead Obama Not Into Temptation

8/2/2011
Last week, when President Barack Obama spoke to the National Council of La Raza, he said something that should alarm every American. He confessed that he'd like to "bypass Congress and change the laws" on his own. He added, "Believe me; the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you."

He doesn't need to promise us. We believe him, because we've been watching his rogue behavior since the moment he entered office.

Way back in February 2010, even The New York Times unveiled his modus operandi, in its report "Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power." It summarized, "With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities."

Obama's unauthorized war in Libya was just one more wayward decision in a long line of executive-power-run-amok choices, taken despite the fact that top Pentagon lawyers considered his unilateral Libyan invasion to be illegal "hostilities." And according to congressional testimony, his own lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel were asked to soft-pedal their views so as to curb any further violation allegations.

What alarms me is that these perversions of power are coming from not only the highest office in the land but also Obama's advisers and team (including his lawyers). In his speech to the National Council of La Raza, the president also explained that he was taking his cues from others: "I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own."

Of course, Obama knew that to do so at the outset of the debt debates would have ensured his political downfall. On the other hand, swooping down in the last hour on Capitol Hill from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. with his Democratic majority in the Senate to save the economy from hopeless partisan gridlock would surely put him on the front page of Savior Daily!

Speaking of the press, what's equally tragic is that the Obama-mania media are jumping on the executive-power runaway express. Just this past Thursday, CNN's website ran an article by Jack Balkin, a constitutional law expert at Yale, titled "3 ways Obama could bypass Congress." (Do you think CNN would have extended the same clemency from Congress to former President George W. Bush?)

As The New York Times reported at the beginning of last year, Obama's exploits to bypass Congress are intended to "advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities." We now can add America's border problems to those, as Obama also elaborated last week that the temptation to bypass Congress includes "not just immigration reform." No wonder the crowd began to chant "Yes, we can!" (Tragically, it seems that too many citizens want a (SET ITAL) Fuhrer (END ITAL) more than they do a president.)

Do we really want a power-hungry rogue president who continually is tempted to bypass Congress? Will we continue to allow unilateral power to our president to follow his own political whims and desires? Do we want a supreme leader who constantly seeks ways to justify dodging our bicameral government -- the very checks and balances of our republic? When he avoids Congress, is he not also trampling on the Constitution and its mandates for separation of powers and teamwork among our three branches of government?

Has the president forgotten his oath of office, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?

Mr. President, I strongly suggest you meditate upon the legal genius of Joseph Story, a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845 (appointed by President James Madison). Justice Story wrote: "The duty imposed upon (the president) to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.' The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose."

Wow, how Justice Story's words fly in the face of President Obama's thoughts about bypassing Congress.

No wonder Thomas Jefferson passionately proclaimed: "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution ... taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."

God, lead Obama not into doing-things-on-his-own temptation.

 

Charity never worked as well as has working the welfare state. Never.

 

The fear and bewilderment on the left is so palpable it could be cut with a knife.

Non-Americans have nothing to fear from the American right.

The American left has much to fear...because the Blue Model of Govt. is coming to a complete end. There will be no violence, but those dependent on the Blue Model for survival will be cast adrift because America can no longer have what it cannot pay for.

 

Well, IMO the welfare state does more harm than good and is a waste of money because of bureaucrats, waste, fraud, and detached accountability.

 

Yes, but communism is not. In its ideal form possibly. In the form it takes on here in the world no. There has yet to be a communist country where true equality exists.

In the end, I put communism with fascism. They both want to tell you what to do and who to be. And have all caused so many atrocities as to be discredited as a legitimate form of government.

I beleive in balance myself. Right now the scale is tipping in one direction to far.

 

Your talk against fascism is fascinating--seeing as how you want a small group of people (government entity) to control how the population spends money, and who with and what they will pay for goods and services.

Your small group of elites would control how the private business owners conducts business. Your small group of elites would dictate pay, dictate hours........

I dunno...doesn't that sound a bit fascist?

 

Actually, I am anarchist. So I want total abolition of the government...and corporations. Because as anarchist I am anti-authoritarian, and it means any kind of authority.

But in capitalism, I prefer a government to regulate this. A government to avoid that the system become a menace for the life.

Capitalism is a depredatory system. Its basis in compentence and individualism makes this system depredatory. And conservatism is the new version of the corpocracy. They want to reduce government, but hey, they want to keep police and army. The best ways to create a police state, because it is what would become. A police state to protect corporations, no the people.

So, yes I see in conservatism a new form of fascism. Mainly because many conservative defend more totalitarian government. For example I've seen in this forums conservative defending the creation of a wall in the Mexican frontier. And what is worst, that they should be able to shoot the immigrants that try to cross the frontier. That is pure fascism.

And yes I fear the American conservatism, because many of them are terribly religious, and it is a danger. Also they are terribly militarist and in some way even pro-war. Another point to conclude that conservatism is fascist.

Conservatism, as always has done the fascism plays with the popular messages to install itself in power. Fascism uses the conservatism as the form of third option.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzeLoa1gwCU&feature=related"]I WISH I WAS IN DIXIE LAND - YouTube[/ame]

 

I do not think changing the focus to a smaller amount of people, (who really need it) and changing the name sheerly to keep people from saying derogatory things because; it's still welfare, is hardly corporatism. Neither is the government using revenue to let people support themselves with jobs and stand on their own two feet. Instead of just giving them a check of other people's money every month. My question is even if it was "corpocracy" that leads to fascism, where is it exactly that the socialistic tendencies you suggest take us?

 

I am a little confused, my definition of a fascist is someone who forces what he/she believes on others. This does not necessarily mean that to be fascist you must be violent, or even militant. Fascism can be spread through fear, ignorance, lack of education, there are other ways besides violence to force an opinion on someone, for instance if you were an anarchist on a message board..... lol.

 

That's right, it did. I did not appreciate you calling me that. It was clearly insulting.

Insults are against the TOS here.

 

Welfare well used isn't corporatism. But what governments do its corporatism, and I refuse it.

For example I coincide with the opinion of the right that the bailouts to the bank shouldn't have to be done. Although for different reasons than them, here we coincide.

 

Yeah, I agree. Usually fascism and religion are spread by the lack of education. People well educated usually will run away from that.

I don't understand what you mean with:

for instance if you were an anarchist on a message board..... lol.

 

Aren't anarchists the ones breaking the windows of privately owned businesses, turning over the cars of everyday citizens, destroying property owned by others? Seems to me the anachist does believe in some sort of authority----their own authority to destroy and take at will.

What you just said here...is that "I'm not a fascist, but I am."

Fascism is protecting your borders? You don't know the meaning of the word.

Fascism is one entity controlling other people and other people's property. Fascism is not having any respect for property ownership, and individual free-will and free choice.

This is also the definition of Anarchy----a system where you can't own anything and who ever is powerful at the time can take at will.

 

Perfect definition of what was, is, and will be USA. USA is formed by one entity, government(that no one wants to abolish) that controls will of other people and other people's property.

And it is exactly what conservatism want.

The problem is how you make the study of their message. But I am pretty sure that the history will give me the reason. Well, it is already giving me the reason. But it will continue and radicalized.

Conservatism as I've said is an ideology formed in the next values:

- Xenophoby: First the people of the country later the rest
- Racism: no necessity to explain that
- Nationalism: Directly related with the xenophoby. It is a really nationalist ideology, and also related with xenophoby wants the control of frontiers, until so high level as want to construct a wall in the bordiers.
- Religion: Strong fanatism of a religion, in this case christianism.
- Homophoby: Obviouslye linked to the religious beliefs they don't respect neither tolerate some sexual conditions, so are completely intolerant and discriminatory against these condition.
- Death penalty: Defenders of death penalty, and even would be able to defend it for more cases that the ones contemplated today.

Then all that are characteristics of conservatism, and obviously of fascism. Then we can conclude that conservatism is the new fascism.

And like every moment in the history in crisis time, the reaction appears with more force, and the reaction is the fascism, now in form of conservatism.

And about anarchism. Anarchism refuses any form of authority. It is the reality. Anarchism is a form of organization where the people have the real power to decide, is the purest of democracy and equality.

In conclusion say or insinuate that anarchism can have any relation with the fascism is absurd, because it is all the contrary to that. Fascism is authoritarian, totalitarian like is capitalism in any of his forms, mainly in the conservatist form. Fascism and anarchism are completely antagonists, and don't have any link. 0 links.

 

Perfect definition of what was, is, and will be USA. USA is formed by one entity, government(that no one wants to abolish) that controls will of other people and other people's property.

And it is exactly what conservatism want.

The problem is how you make the study of their message. But I am pretty sure that the history will give me the reason. Well, it is already giving me the reason. But it will continue and radicalized.

Conservatism as I've said is an ideology formed in the next values:

- Xenophoby: First the people of the country later the rest
- Racism: no necessity to explain that
- Nationalism: Directly related with the xenophoby. It is a really nationalist ideology, and also related with xenophoby wants the control of frontiers, until so high level as want to construct a wall in the bordiers.
- Religion: Strong fanatism of a religion, in this case christianism.
- Homophoby: Obviouslye linked to the religious beliefs they don't respect neither tolerate some sexual conditions, so are completely intolerant and discriminatory against these condition.
- Death penalty: Defenders of death penalty, and even would be able to defend it for more cases that the ones contemplated today.

Then all that are characteristics of conservatism, and obviously of fascism. Then we can conclude that conservatism is the new fascism.

And like every moment in the history in crisis time, the reaction appears with more force, and the reaction is the fascism, now in form of conservatism.

And about anarchism. Anarchism refuses any form of authority. It is the reality. Anarchism is a form of organization where the people have the real power to decide, is the purest of democracy and equality.

In conclusion say or insinuate that anarchism can have any relation with the fascism is absurd, because it is all the contrary to that. Fascism is authoritarian, totalitarian like is capitalism in any of his forms, mainly in the conservatist form. Fascism and anarchism are completely antagonists, and don't have any link. 0 links.

 

Perfect definition of what was, is, and will be USA. USA is formed by one entity, government(that no one wants to abolish) that controls will of other people and other people's property.

And it is exactly what conservatism want.

The problem is how you make the study of their message. But I am pretty sure that the history will give me the reason. Well, it is already giving me the reason. But it will continue and radicalized.

Conservatism as I've said is an ideology formed in the next values:

- Xenophoby: First the people of the country later the rest
- Racism: no necessity to explain that
- Nationalism: Directly related with the xenophoby. It is a really nationalist ideology, and also related with xenophoby wants the control of frontiers, until so high level as want to construct a wall in the bordiers.
- Religion: Strong fanatism of a religion, in this case christianism.
- Homophoby: Obviouslye linked to the religious beliefs they don't respect neither tolerate some sexual conditions, so are completely intolerant and discriminatory against these condition.
- Death penalty: Defenders of death penalty, and even would be able to defend it for more cases that the ones contemplated today.

Then all that are characteristics of conservatism, and obviously of fascism. Then we can conclude that conservatism is the new fascism.

And like every moment in the history in crisis time, the reaction appears with more force, and the reaction is the fascism, now in form of conservatism.

And about anarchism. Anarchism refuses any form of authority. It is the reality. Anarchism is a form of organization where the people have the real power to decide, is the purest of democracy and equality.

In conclusion say or insinuate that anarchism can have any relation with the fascism is absurd, because it is all the contrary to that. Fascism is authoritarian, totalitarian like is capitalism in any of his forms, mainly in the conservatist form. Fascism and anarchism are completely antagonists, and don't have any link. 0 links.

 

I'm sorry about deleting the earlier part of your post. I did read it and can go back to it. But this is quite an education on anarchism...and I have to dig further. You really should explain a little bit more.

How I see it---Anarchists--a group with a like ideology--- destroys private businesses and privately owned property outright and regardless of their supposed abhorrance to the current government---wants that government to control the population's freedom to buy and sell, and strives to take property from some and give to others of their choosing. Anarchists impose their form of government on others through force....force of law and force of violence.

I mean....if a bunch of anarchists are in power....they ARE the ruling force right? The governmental authority so to speak

Isn't the behavior and the ideology of the Anarchist that of totaltarianism?

to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed

 

An-archy, i.e. without kings or rulers. This necessarily precludes anarchists from believing that government, except on the smallest of scales, is any sort of thing they would promote. You have confused anarchy with socialism.

 

Anarchists put on hoods, run the streets, punch out cops and the windows of the "capitalist pigs". This makes them the "kings" and "ruler" when THEY have the power.

And a totaltarian force such as that is not showing itself as advocating a small scale government. It is demonstrating the opposite--- that a strong forceful totaltarian government is crucial for its idealology to work.

The idealology itself...is so dishonest and convoluted....I wonder how anyone takes them seriously.

 

You have conflated a few hundred kids vandalizing the streets out of frustration with the existing political and economic order while being chased, tear gassed, beaten and arrested by the police into a mobile totalitarian dictatorship less than a block long that is now poised to take over the world.

Bravo!!

 

Wrong. These "kids" choose to converge and plan the violent acts and you cheer them on through your sympathy and justification. I certainly don't hear you rail against their heavy handed totaltarian strategy. Hypocrisy is what the Anarchist movement is all about.

A government by the people---is not what Anarchist want. Nope...they want to rule the people though force and intimidation. Otherwise....people might choose individual freedom.

The reality of what Anarchy is--- comes through when an Anarchist advocates for a strong government to thwart individual freedom. And it comes through when an Anarchist justifies violence against those who do not share the Anarchy ideology.

An Anarchist can only change the economic order through totaltarism...and then an Anarchist needs to keep the status quo through totaltarian rule.

Its so obvious......but ya'll must go to college or something. That will mess a person up until they hit the real world.