Totalitarianism is once again on the march. It's coming at us so fast and from so many directions it is difficult to see as a whole, though the pieces are quite familiar.
Let's start with President Obama's most recent encroachment on the private sector, the putative firing of GM's CEO. Nothing in the Constitution tells us that Presidents should maniuplate the leadership of private enterprise, or usurp the responsibilities of shareholders and boards. While I shed no tears for GM or its failed CEO, I wonder about Obama's vision of the Presidency when he behaves more like Hugo Chavez than Teddy Roosevelt, our most activist President when it came to clipping the excesses of big business.
When in modern times has a President taken such invasive action in the private sector, apart from Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls?
"He has the massive will of the American people behind him -- and he has been granted permission by us to do what he sees fit. If you liked this week's all-net 3-pointer, stay tuned."
To do what he sees fit. We're a long, long way now from the American political heritage of Rousseau, Locke, Burke, and Jefferson when we think like this.
Tough economic times are opportune moments for totalitarianism, and sometimes it comes with charismatic leaders who buff it up with charm and soaring rhetoric. Finally, though, all they offer are their own beliefs about what is fair, just and right. And when the timing is right, a lot of people will agree with them.
What is fair, just and right is usually defined against a fearful backdrop of scoundrels, represented by dehumanized stereotypes: The rich, bankers, lawyers, hedge fund managers, and usually Jews (don't worry -- that's coming).
Consider Glenn Beck's questioning of Connecticut's Attorney General, who could not offer any legal grounds for harrassing the bonus babies of AIG. Finally, he fell back on his perception of popular sentiment -- that AIG employees got "money they don't deserve."
Who's to be the judge of that, if not your boss? Apparently, more and more people feel comfortable making Obama the final judge of more and more things: What should taxpayers subsidize, who should be taxed more, what people ought to earn, what constitutes social justice.
To do what he sees fit. It is really no different than what Germans, Argentinian Peronistas, Spanish Francists, Italian fascists, and Nicaraguan Sandinistas granted to their leaders.
Come now, you say -- Obama's no Hitler! He is not. But National Socialism and every other fascist movement took root with government control of private industry and institutions (especially universities, and press). Private ownership, government control. Take away the funny mustaches and silly uniforms, and that's what totalitarianism is. Sometimes it is accompanied by imperialism and mass slaughter, but sometimes it is quieter than that (Tito, Castro, Peron, Chavez). Only the scapegoats change to suit the Leader's needs.
You won't catch President Obama wearing a funny uniform, but his minions in Congress just passed a bill that triples funding for Americorps, and organizes them into "local cadres," with uniforms, military-style discipline, and a committee to consider compulsory service for Americans of all ages. Even the San Francisco Examiner, hardly a conservative oracle, called it "creepy authoritarianism." And those same minions are considering passing his reduction of tax deductions for charitable contributions -- a move no doubt designed make the non-profit private sector more dependent on government, and less on private donors.
All of these policies, and more, show us a President who is a classid statist, with a profound distrust of the individual, and a will to curb individual freedoms in the interest of groups -- favored political classes of people. Most people won't be among those favored groups when it's all said and done.
The rising totalitarian sentiment is not confined to the left. It's worth remembering that our modern left and right, Communist and fascist movements, both originated from the dialectic philosophy of Hegel. Increasingly, we see fascist and Communist flags in public demonstrations in the streets of London and Paris, not to mention long-forgotten fascist flags and insignia increasing displayed at professional football matches in Europe.
Unconnected things, perhaps. I think not. I think we're seeing social phenomena -- Obama is one example -- that reflect people's reactions to widespread economic insecurity and fear for the future, a call for someone to just fix it, to make things right again. To do what he sees fit.
With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.
For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.
In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.
(Column continues below)
Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?
What does it mean?
If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?
I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?
Are we talking about creating a police state here?
A lawmaker in Colorado who challenged the authors of SB200, a new law that bans discrimination based on the "perception" of gender, during House debate says it was written to give a wide open door to anyone who wants to banish Christian beliefs or the Bible.
"This is so loaded. It's written in an open-ended fashion that anybody can take just about any part of it and grow it into a huge monstrosity," state Rep. Kevin Lundberg told WND today. "It was written with intentional [vagueness]."
He spoke with WND after a news conference at which a number of groups and organizations announced plans to challenge the law. Among those promising to dispute the new limitations on speech and actions was Liberty Counsel, which is reviewing the situation now in preparation for a legal challenge.
"Section 8 of Senate Bill 200 is a wide open door for any judge to censor anything that condemns homosexuality, including Scripture," Lundberg said at the news conference. Section 8 is headlined, "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden."
Homosexual-rights advocates have asked California's Supreme Court to block citizens from voting this fall on a measure voters originally brought to the ballot: Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act.
Proposition 8, so labeled when Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified it earlier this month for placement on the November 4 ballot, is a constitutional amendment that states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The amendment was created by voter initiative with the signatures of 1.1 million voters, more than the required 694,354 needed to place an issue on the ballot.
Lawyers representing the ACLU and Equality California, however, filed a petition earlier this month in the state's highest court to strike Proposition 8 from the ballot, claiming the measure is not merely an amendment, but a revision, which a lawyer told WND is defined as a radical rewrite of the Constitution that would drastically upset the social fabric of California and require convening a constitutional convention to approve.
Liberty Counsel founder, Mathew Staver, told WND that if there was any radical rewrite of California's social fabric, it was done last month when the Supreme Court ignored over a century of precedent in the state's definition of marriage with a 4-3 ruling that deemed a law defining marriage between one man and one woman unconstitutional.
"They're suggesting the Supreme Court can rewrite the entire institution of marriage, but people can't amend the Constitution to go back to its historical definition," Staver said. "It's absolutely ridiculous to argue that courts can turn society upside down in 30 days but the people have no right to define it."
Criticizing homosexual marriage's legal advocates, Staver said, "Their agenda is to trample the will of the people and elevate by force the will of four individuals on the Supreme Court over the will of millions of voters."
