The coming American dictatorship

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by DKSuddeth, Jun 9, 2004.

  1. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    A dictatorship is possible anywhere. Throughout history dictatorships are the conditions under which most people have lived. There have even been times when everyone on the planet lived under a dictatorship of one sort or another. And, as if we can’t stand freedom, it seems as if every place men have won freedoms, the generations that followed them gave them away. Always.

    There’s evidence that that’s what we’re doing now. We’re putting all the mechanisms in place that will make one possible. Two hundred years ago, our Founding Fathers had put as many obstacles as possible in the way of a dictatorship because they feared that unless there were obstacles, specifically, the safeguards in our Constitution, a dictatorship was inevitable.

    But even then, many of them weren’t optimistic about our chances. When Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention, a Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ Franklin replied, ‘A republic if you can keep it.’ He expressed the sentiment of many of the delegates.

    Today, as if we’re bent on proving the cynicism in Franklin’s reply was deserved, we’re ignoring—no, we’re actually throwing away—the safeguards hammered out among the delegates to that Convention. We’re not changing the wording or the intent of the Constitution, we’re just ignoring it.

    Six signs of the end of America’s freedoms

    First there’s the steady erosion of our basic rights, the ones a lot of people call our constitutional rights, though that’s not a good name for them. It’s better to think of them as natural rights, the way our Founding Fathers did—or think of them as God-given rights if you want. Thinking of them as constitutional rights is part of what is getting us in trouble. You have to realize that our Founding Fathers didn’t think of them as constitutional rights because they knew that if our rights are provided by either the Constitution or the government, what the government gives, it can also take away. As natural or God-given rights, they’re absolute. That’s the way they were intended.

    The next problem we have is related to this erosion of our rights, but I’d treat it as a whole separate category. It’s the unintended consequences of having created new rights—legal rights created by Congress and which Congress and bureaucrats have decided supercede or nullify our natural rights. These include the new rights that have come about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Environmental Protection Act, and the American Disabilities Act. Unlike our natural rights, which come to us at the expense of no one else, the new rights have to be provided by someone else. It’s in having to provide them that our government has found ways to erode our natural rights.

    Third there’s the unconstitutional bypassing of our legislative process by the President—not just this one in office now, but by all of the recent presidents.
    Using what are called Executive Orders, they create laws that are not only illegal and unconstitutional, but are created without the consent of the Congress or the people of the United States. Some of these edicts, believe it or not, explicitly suspend the Constitution for an indeterminate amount of time on the whim of the President.

    Fourth, there’s the new rules and regulations imposed on businesses by our federal government by which the government circumvents our Fifth Amendment rights by insisting businesses spy on us. This includes banks, airlines, and even manufacturers of things like light bulbs and paper.
    Fifth is the creation of a professional, standing army. The Founding Fathers feared a professional army. They believed this country should depend on the militia—and I’m using the word ‘militia’ in the way they used it in the Second Amendment, meaning the body of citizen, not the National Guard or some other professional organization. Professional armies lose their allegiance to the citizenry and have a history of becoming the accomplices of tyrants. It’s highly unlikely there would have been any protests to the illegal war we fought in Vietnam if we’d had a professional army then.

    Last of all, but not least, our economy is no longer a true free market economy. It is now one of the socialist economies. We’re now a fascist economy. For all of our posturing about how bad fascism is, we have created a fascist economy as a compromise between capitalism and communism.

    All of these changes are milestones on the road to tyranny. If they had all been invoked at once, we’d have seen them for what they are, an attempt to subvert what had once been the freest society history has ever seen. There’d have been a revolution in this country; blood would have run in the streets. But they’ve come over generations, and the American people, whose collective attention span is brief and whose memory is even shorter, have come to believe that the way things are in this country today is the way they’ve always been.

    An example of tyranny

    Drug laws started out as tax laws not long after the turn of the century. But we need to fast forward to 1934, when Prohibition was repealed, to see how they got worse. When Prohibition ended, there was the question of what the government was going to do with all the agents it had hired to run down the bootleggers, speakeasy owners, and rumrunners. The obvious answer was to send them home. But FDR was too kind hearted to throw anyone out of work once they were living off the largess of the taxpayers, even though, in his election campaign, he had sworn he was going to cut the size of government. So he set this crew off to chase drug users.

    It was a practical decision. Prohibition had failed because it had been imposed on whites; whites wanted to drink so whites ended it. But whites didn’t do drugs. Only blacks and Mexicans did. So Roosevelt turned the otherwise idle agents of the war on alcohol to pursuing drugs, and the rest was history. Blatant racism if ever there needed to be an example. Of course, no one foresaw the 1960s when white kids would start smoking pot, dropping acid, and snortin’ coke the way their parents and grandparents had been swilling beer, wine, and bathtub gin. But suddenly, white America found itself throwing its own children and grandchildren in jails.

    Drug laws are also, in reality, unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority to make such laws. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution make it pretty clear that we can do with our bodies as we wish. The 14th Amendment says the states have got to leave us alone, too.

    In a cruel twist of fate, by the 1960s the antidrug campaign had become a huge industry. There were people who benefitted from it despite the fact that it is illegal and was ruining millions of lives. The livelihoods of police, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, and many others depend on drugs being illegal and remaining illegal. And, like many other industries, the drug prohibition industry is a growth industry; it grows by making more and more laws which are increasingly pervasive and harsher and have less constitutional basis.

    Start with RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. When RICO was passed, it became legal, despite the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, for the police to deprive citizens of property without due process. They can do this simply on the suspicion alone that the property is linked to a crime. They don’t have to have a warrant, they don’t even have to prove their accusations. RICO is not only unconstitutional, it abrogates the body of common law and tradition our legal system rests on. The state no longer has to prove citizens are guilty of anything to seize their belongings; the citizens must prove they are innocent through an almost impossible and expensive process which includes posting bonds which, in theory, the government can also seize. The government benefits from these laws. The value of many of the seized goods, including cars, homes, boats, guns, land, jewelry, and other hard goods, as well as cash, were supposed to be added to the budgets of various law enforcement agencies to help fight the War on Drugs. But politicians and other bureaucrats aren’t stupid. Once they saw the vast amounts of extra money going into law enforcement, they weren’t going to sit by without getting a slice of the pie. However, they couldn’t just take it. They could, on the other hand, cut the budgets of law enforcement by the dollar amount of the goods seized. So instead of law enforcement budgets getting bigger, the funding just got shifted.

    what we have now are the police departments of America with an economic stake in keeping these unconstitutional laws on the books and enforcing them. The police are not the only ones benefiting either. The same goes for prisons. If the War on Drugs were dropped and the P.O.W.s, the hostages taken in that war, were sent home, some three quarters of our prison population would disappear. The United States imprisons a greater percentage of its own citizens than any other country in the world. So what would all the prison guards currently employed to do this do? Where would the wardens get their next jobs? What would happen to all those communities in the middle of nowhere whose main industry is the prison? As prisons closed, real estate would plummet in those communities and people would lose their life savings. Do you think someone with $100,000 into a house, in one of these backwater towns, wants the illegal War on Drugs stopped? Think about it.
     
  2. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    I'd like to see examples...(shrug).
     
  3. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    Let’s first define natural rights. When this country was founded, the Founders believed we all share a certain number of rights. Individuals are presumed to have these rights and they exist apart from the state itself. This belief has become the foundation of our legal system.

    In virtually every other country, today and in the past, the assumption has been that the source of your rights is the government.

    But in this country, and only this country, our real rights exist apart from the country and from the government itself. It is for this reason, though most Americans don’t seem to understand it, that when a foreigner in this country is accused of committing a crime, and demands his rights—including due process—he’s accorded the same rights as American citizens because our rights are presumed to be human rights and not reserved for Americans alone. The people who founded this country assumed them to have existed before the United States existed and that they will exist even if the United States ceases to exist tomorrow. In fact, they are assumed to exist everywhere, including in other countries. They exist in China where they are simply denied, they exist in every two-bit African or South American dictatorship, and they’ll even exist if we ever go to another planet. It’s a purely American belief, though unfortunately most Americans don’t seem to be aware of it anymore.

    Part of that erosion is NOW being argued with regards to non-citizens, detainess, and enemy-combatants. Gitmo ring a bell?
     
  4. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    So....where have our 'natural rights' been eroded? Those people at Gitmo have nothing to do w/ a 'coming dictatorship' in the USA - they are terrorists and suspected terrorists. They are getting their 'basic human rights' met.
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    the natural rights are laid out in the bill of rights. they make no distinction as being applicable only to citizens. the point is that a majority of americans are, even now just like you, advocating removing natural human rights, not 'basic' rights. Our founding fathers perceived that our 'natural' rights are those granted by our creator, not our government, yet we allow our government to remove those natural rights at will for anyone they designate and we approve of it. Its only a matter of time before that power is extended and used more often.
     
  6. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Of course it applies to Citizens...they weren't righting a 'world-rights-bill'.

    I'd like one example of me advocating removing basic/natural human rights.

    Please - provide ONE example of how our government is eroding our basic/natural human rights.

    It's 'not' violating human/natural rights to detain those who try to kill us. They are allowed food, hygeine, religious needs...
     
  7. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    they made no distinction OTHER than to say rights given to us by our creator.

    How many of those at gitmo have had their 'due process' in accordance with the 4th amendment? Did we not let our government, with little protest mind you, write an executive order that allows the government to detain ANYONE whom the president designates an enemy combatant without counsel? Thats a clear violation no matter whether you accept that as fact or not.
     
  8. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    Makes sense to me, DK.
    Not that anyone cares.
     
  9. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    One must apply the common-sense rule here - Those who penned the documents did so as a guide to OUR goverment; they were NOT creating a UN Charter.

    Clear violation of WHAT?

    they aren't citizens. (shrug).

    The issue is - these bastards were caught, NOT as an ememy ARMY, but as private citizens (Of another country, mostly) trying to kill us.

    The Military/Courts are processing them...but because of their actions (trying to kill us), they are paying a price.

    (shrug).
     
  10. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    the constitution is written to pertain to the united states of america. Nowhere does it say that these rights and this constitution apply only if you're a citizen of the united states. It applies to any human body within the united states. Now, the point that will be made is that gitmo is 'technically' not part of the united states yet the navy base their is operated by the united states and anyone ON that base is under the jurisdiction OF the united states, therefore any body, citizen or not, is governed by the constitution and the bill of rights.
     

Share This Page