"after America, There Is No Place To Go"

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't doubt her sincerity but having lived and worked for many years overseas under a totalitarian regime I know what does and doesn't constitute such an entity. If there is going to be one in this nation it will come from those who claim they want to "protect us" from that happening. At the present I am hearing that from the extreme right rather than from the left.

Beware of those who would frighten you into believing that your fellow Americans are the "enemy" and be even more wary of those who claim that they can "protect" you from them. That applies to both extremes so I am not pointing fingers here because both extremes are equally capable of it.

We the People must protect our own rights from those who would take them away. We grow when we expand rights like gay marriage. We are threatened when we restrict rights like making it harder for everyone to vote. The biggest threat to our rights today is Citizens United in my opinion. Corporations are not part of We the People and should be banned from all elections in my opinion.

You sound like you're already lost freedom and are so duped by the dictators who took it from you that you aren't even aware of it. The EPA is the green SS. And that's just for starters. Homo marriage is a gov coercion that takes away freedom and you're FOR it? Obamacare is nothing but more gov intrusion. Books and speech are banned by left wing entities and you put more blame on the right? People are segregated and subsequently castigated by the left and you think the right is the threat? Get a grip! You're demonstrating the existence of the concern in the thread's premise.

I tend to agree with this though it doesn't matter whether suppression of liberties occurs by the left or right--both are equally dangerous when imposed by a central government. The argument that America is better than pre-WWII Austria simply is irrelevant to the point Werthmann is making, i.e. if we fail to be aware and pay attention:

1. What seem to be well intentioned and useful government programs can in fact be wolves in sheep's clothing with motives that no way resemble what is put out there for public consumption.

2. Again, that frog put into hot water will immediately jump out. But put him in cold water and gradually heat it, and he will be lulled into complacency until he is boiled to death. Each tiny change in the law or policy that restricts our freedom, choices, options, and opportunities may seem unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But if we fail to push back and object, even strenuously resist, the central government taking over what we should decide for ourselves, eventually we collapse under the sheer weight of all those 'unimportant' little changes and lose all ability for self governance.

Who among us thinks that is or would be okay?

Start by disbanding the EPA and IRS. But the dems would resist.

Or eliminate the withholding tax so everyone had to reach into their pocket, and move tax day to election day! It would in effect do away with Democrats.

 

[candycorn]

AvgGuyIA,
Your freedoms were intact during the Bush presidency. Not so much with the Obama regime.. Tell me, can you avoid buying Obamacare? Hmm?

hey when you need to lie in order to have a point, who's going to take you seriously.

Somehow, the NSA was listening to our phone calls under Bush for our own good. When the NSA is doing it under Obama, it's a frog being boiled or some bullshit like that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AvgGuyIA,
Your freedoms were intact during the Bush presidency. Not so much with the Obama regime.. Tell me, can you avoid buying Obamacare? Hmm?

hey when you need to lie in order to have a point, who's going to take you seriously.

Somehow, the NSA was listening to our phone calls under Bush for our own good. When the NSA is doing it under Obama, it's a frog being boiled or some bullshit like that.

dear, Obama had 3 communist parents and voted to left of Bernie Sanders. When a totalitarian progressive is listening to your calls it is time to worry. Do you understand?

 

[Rikurzhen]

If there is going to be one in this nation it will come from those who claim they want to "protect us" from that happening. At the present I am hearing that from the extreme right rather than from the left.

NO, it comes from those who want to help you. In order to "help you" they need more power for government. See Obamacare.

Beware of those who would frighten you into believing that your fellow Americans are the "enemy"

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. You are the enemy of people who value liberty. I don't need to beware of people saying this when I can see it myself.

You are the problem, not the solution.

Tanker yelling to the man : "You are the problem, not the solution."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. .

are you talking Iran or USA?? If USA can you present best example?

 

[MisterBeale]

I tend to agree with this though it doesn't matter whether suppression of liberties occurs by the left or right--both are equally dangerous when imposed by a central government. The argument that America is better than pre-WWII Austria simply is irrelevant to the point Werthmann is making, i.e. if we fail to be aware and pay attention:

1. What seem to be well intentioned and useful government programs can in fact be wolves in sheep's clothing with motives that no way resemble what is put out there for public consumption.

2. Again, that frog put into hot water will immediately jump out. But put him in cold water and gradually heat it, and he will be lulled into complacency until he is boiled to death. Each tiny change in the law or policy that restricts our freedom, choices, options, and opportunities may seem unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But if we fail to push back and object, even strenuously resist, the central government taking over what we should decide for ourselves, eventually we collapse under the sheer weight of all those 'unimportant' little changes and lose all ability for self governance.

Who among us thinks that is or would be okay?

That's what I think we need to focus on. Government elites, in the final analysis, don't really have a partisan agenda. The only thing they care about is POWER.

Let us not forget, Hitler and Mussolini were fascist. Fascism is properly understood to be corporatism. Although we may like to believe that Obama is a socialist, he really is no Bernie Sanders. In fact, Bernie Sanders is probably no Bernie Sanders. They are all the same, corporatists. More commonly understood to be fascists. I know people's ego's are all wrapped up in party identification, but these politicians don't give two shits about the people. They only care about the global agenda. . . which is, the corporate agenda. It's a big rich elite club, and nobody here is in it. All these politicians represent one agenda, the difference between them are minor.

The observations of this lady are quite prescient.

This exact same warning went out when the draconian legislation during the LAST administration were passed. But then, nobody cared either. Just like now. Nobody takes the threat seriously.

Published during the last Administration. Can we seriously say anything has changed? Not really. With the drone strikes, the NSA and IRS spying, etc. Really? It's only gotten worse.

The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot

The ten steps
Wolf outlines ten steps that "closing societies" — such as Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's Russia — have historically followed. These steps, Wolf claims, are being observed in America now.

The steps are:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
5. Harass citizens' groups.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
7. Target key individuals.
8. Control the press.
9. Cast criticism as espionage and dissent as treason.
10. Subvert the rule of law.[3]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They only care about the global agenda. . . which is, the corporate agenda.

that should be fine given that corporations must compete successfully to provide us with the best products in the world at the lowest prices in the world just to survive. Do you feel bad they have it so hard? Imagine if you had to perform that service at that level every day?
Corporations are like Gods, in reality.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They only care about the global agenda. . . which is, the corporate agenda.

that should be fine given that corporations must compete successfully to provide us with the best products in the world at the lowest prices in the world just to survive. Do you feel bad they have it so hard? Imagine if you had to perform that service at that level every day?
Corporations are like Gods, in reality.

imagine how badly brainwashed a liberal has to be to not know that?

 

[Rikurzhen]

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. .

are you talking Iran or USA?? If USA can you present best example?

US.

Liberals hold the religious view that it is evil to exercise one's right to choose one's associations so they've co-opted the power of government to shove their religious view down everyone's throat. If you're a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, too bad, you must comply with the liberal religious view and associate with people you prefer not to associate with.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. .

are you talking Iran or USA?? If USA can you present best example?

US.

Liberals hold the religious view that it is evil to exercise one's right to choose one's associations so they've co-opted the power of government to shove their religious view down everyone's throat. If you're a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, too bad, you must comply with the liberal religious view and associate with people you prefer not to associate with.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

William F.Buckley Jr.

 

[Plasmaball]

AvgGuyIA,
Your freedoms were intact during the Bush presidency. Not so much with the Obama regime.. Tell me, can you avoid buying Obamacare? Hmm?

hey when you need to lie in order to have a point, who's going to take you seriously.

Somehow, the NSA was listening to our phone calls under Bush for our own good. When the NSA is doing it under Obama, it's a frog being boiled or some bullshit like that.

Or you know the fact that they have been spying on people for over a century..
But yeah Obama bad

 

[Richard-H]

This thread's OP is pure bullshit:

First there was a coup by Austrian Nazi's, then Austria was occupied by the German army and only after that a referendum was held on the issue of Austrian annexation. (see wikipedia)

Before the Austrian Nazi coup there were several major political parties in Austrian in sometimes violent contention.

When the referendum was held, the Nazis were in 100% control of the polling and election process, so anyone that believes in the reported 98% pro-annexation vote is a fool.

Second, as anyone who has read at least parts of Mein Kampf knows Hilter was a fanatically religious person. Religion was the cornerstone of his Nazi philosophy. It's highly doubtful that the Nazis suppressed religion in Austria as the OP says. Nazism depended on it's people having deep set religious beliefs so that they would be willing to make any level of sacrifice.

It appears that the OP just decided to make up a story whereby they'd list a bunch of (what they perceived to be) liberal programs, then declared that Hitler implemented those same programs in Austria. I SERIOUSLY doubt any of it. The OP is pure fantasy and pure BULLSHIT!

Typical right wing loon!

 

[Plasmaball]

Country Rankings World Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

economics we rank 12th, So 12 other places you can go for the economy.
World s freest nations how to measure liberty.

20th for the press, so you have 20 other places you can go if you are the press.

Freedom Index Find Freedom

I put in 1.00 as in everything was crucial, naturally this isnt the case for everyone, But lets pretend it is.
9 other countries are freer than the USA.

Your OP is full of shit as per usual.

I figured this would be ignored so the op could go on about faux hysteria.

 

[MisterBeale]

They only care about the global agenda. . . which is, the corporate agenda.

that should be fine given that corporations must compete successfully to provide us with the best products in the world at the lowest prices in the world just to survive. Do you feel bad they have it so hard? Imagine if you had to perform that service at that level every day?
Corporations are like Gods, in reality.

imagine how badly brainwashed a liberal has to be to not know that?

Clearly you do no know the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. Corporations don't compete. They pay off the government and politicians to make sure they don't have to.


Capitalism Isn't Corporatism or Cronyism
Capitalism Isn t Corporatism or Cronyism - Forbes

In fact, capitalism is the system of rights, liberty, civility, peace and non-sacrificial prosperity; it’s not the system of government that unjustly favors capitalists at others’ expense. It provides a level legal playing field plus officials who serve us as low-profile referees (not arbitrary rule-makers or score-changers). To be sure, capitalism also entails inequality – of ambition, talent, income, or wealth – because that’s how individuals (and firms) really are; they’re unique, not clones or inter-changeable parts, as the egalitarians claim. Capitalism is the political system which ensures that innocent “economic power” (i.e., the power to produce) isn’t mixed with force to become invalid political power (i.e., the power to loot); it’s the system that separates business and state, for the same good reason that it also makes sure to separate church and state. Neither of the two recent political movements – “Occupy Wall Street” or the “Tea Party” – seem to fully grasp this.
Yes, there’s an alternative system that does entail the government unjustly ruling business and government, in turn, improperly controlled by business for business’s exclusive benefit (whether by subsidies, special favors, monopolies and franchises, tax breaks, or bailouts), even as it nominally still permits private property holdings: it’s called “corporatism” (sometimes, synonymously, “cronyism” or “fascism”). Corporatism was the system originated almost a century ago by the American “Progressives,” and later by Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Roosevelt in the U.S. (see his 1933 National Recovery Act, struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935 as unconstitutional because it was so corporatist). Corporatism goes hand-in-hand with statism, with abandonment of the fully free economy and adoption of the welfare-warfare state. Yet while many oppose cronyism, corporate welfare, and bailouts, they also endorse handouts to almost everyone else, including to the politically-valuable cronies so easily found among today’s labor union leaders, “green” companies, under-water homeowners, over-indebted college students, and war-happy munitions makers.

Those who speak of “crony capitalism” use a smear, to blur distinctions and blame innocents. But let’s keep facts (and terms) perfectly straight. Let’s not equivocate. Above all let’s acknowledge that the real culprits in corporatism are precisely those people who pretend to rail against it: the likes of Ralph Nader, Robert Reich, Barack Obama, and their friends in “Occupy Wall Street.” They all want bigger, more intrusive government in our lives; they are all full-throated pushers of the welfare state and “social democracy” (socialism by vote). Yet they whine against the undue influence of big business and corporations (and their cash) on political campaigns, lobbying, and policy-making. If government is going to intervene to redirect literally trillions of dollars of income and wealth from natural flows into artificial ones, it’s positively inviting and fostering cronyism. The closet corporatists claim to want to get money out of politics, but they won’t dare get politics out of money-making; they claim that capitalists and bankers are to blame for our many woes, but they won’t dare advocate capitalism, the only system that specifically precludes favors to capitalists (or any other sub-group). They deride influence-peddling but demand ever-more intense forms of government influence.

In the world today (and for most of the past century) we haven’t had capitalism per se but instead the welfare state and corporatism; we’ve had what are commonly called “mixed economies,” those with some remaining vestiges of capitalist freedom but also many (and fast-proliferating) controls and taxes. Obfuscations about capitalism’s real nature and the blurring of distinctions between the terms capitalism and corporatism make it difficult for most people to discern cause and effect whenever some disaster or corruption arises, and thus it’s difficult to assign proper blame or achieve a lasting remedy. Yet people should always remind themselves that freedom breeds peace, justice, and prosperity, while coercion breeds violence, exploitation and poverty. When a mixed economy fails, it’s not its capitalist aspect that fails – unless you believe freedom itself fails.

 

[Richard-H]

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. .

are you talking Iran or USA?? If USA can you present best example?

US.

Liberals hold the religious view that it is evil to exercise one's right to choose one's associations so they've co-opted the power of government to shove their religious view down everyone's throat. If you're a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, too bad, you must comply with the liberal religious view and associate with people you prefer not to associate with.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

William F.Buckley Jr.

It isn't that liberals are shocked and offended THAT there are other views, it's that we're shocked and offended by how STUPID and SELFISH right wing views are!

 

[Richard-H]

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. .

are you talking Iran or USA?? If USA can you present best example?

US.

Liberals hold the religious view that it is evil to exercise one's right to choose one's associations so they've co-opted the power of government to shove their religious view down everyone's throat. If you're a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, too bad, you must comply with the liberal religious view and associate with people you prefer not to associate with.

The government has the responsibility to set standards by which businesses must operate. There is absolutely no inalienable right to do business.

Allowing businesses to incorporate personal prejudices would be a terrible mistake. If you want to do business, you cannot pick and choose your customers based on personal prejudices.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. .

are you talking Iran or USA?? If USA can you present best example?

US.

Liberals hold the religious view that it is evil to exercise one's right to choose one's associations so they've co-opted the power of government to shove their religious view down everyone's throat. If you're a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, too bad, you must comply with the liberal religious view and associate with people you prefer not to associate with.

The government has the responsibility to set standards by which businesses must operate. There is absolutely no inalienable right to do business.

Allowing businesses to incorporate personal prejudices would be a terrible mistake. If you want to do business, you cannot pick and choose your customers based on personal prejudices.

Do you think that your religious excuse making convinces anyone? You could just as easily declare that bowing to Mecca in the morning is a standard which businessmen must follow and that they don't have an inalienable right to do business.

What you're doing is engaging in post-hoc rationalization of your religious views. You've put your religious views above my human rights to free association.

 

[Richard-H]

You ARE my enemy. You oppress my liberty by imposing your religious views onto me via the power of government. .

are you talking Iran or USA?? If USA can you present best example?

US.

Liberals hold the religious view that it is evil to exercise one's right to choose one's associations so they've co-opted the power of government to shove their religious view down everyone's throat. If you're a baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, too bad, you must comply with the liberal religious view and associate with people you prefer not to associate with.

The government has the responsibility to set standards by which businesses must operate. There is absolutely no inalienable right to do business.

Allowing businesses to incorporate personal prejudices would be a terrible mistake. If you want to do business, you cannot pick and choose your customers based on personal prejudices.

Do you think that your religious excuse making convinces anyone? You could just as easily declare that bowing to Mecca in the morning is a standard which businessmen must follow and that they don't have an inalienable right to do business.

What you're doing is engaging in post-hoc rationalization of your religious views. You've put your religious views above my human rights to free association.

You've got this so ass backwards it's laughable! You really sound like Steven Colbert doing a satire!

Allowing businesses to choose what customers they will do business with based on their religious views can not be allowed.

You have a right to free association. But free association does not mean that you can refuse to do business with people based on your religious views. It does mean that you may choose who you invite to your family picnic.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You have a right to free association. But free association does not mean that you can refuse to do business with people based on your religious views. It does mean that you may choose who you invite to your family picnic.

Quit shoving your religion down my throat.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Beware of those who would frighten you into believing that your fellow Americans are the "enemy" and be even more wary of those who claim that they can "protect" you from them.

That has been the democrat sales pitch for years now.

exactly

the "evil" gun owners
the "evil" Christians
the "evil" republicans
the "evil" corporations
the "evil" whites
the "evil" jews
the "evil" Americans

Don't forget obama's Head of Homeland Security listing returning US military veterans as a "terrorist threat" that represent "right wing extremism."

they still harp on it from time to time