I believe Bush and his Neoconservatives are fascists in conservatives clothing. So obvious are they with their arrogant power grabs and total disregard as to what is good for WE THE PEOPLE. Actually, they are harming America and sending us all to HELL IN A HANDBASKET. But my belief in this was somewhat WATERED-DOWN, (after all, I really don't know what goes on behind closed capital doors and being a liberal I am always ready to give anyone THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT) that is until today.

Now without a doubt, I KNOW they are taking us on the route Hitler took his country (Just like Hitler, Bush refers to America as HIS to do with whatever he pleases...) just read this from CAPITAL HILL BLUES ...

"With every revelation, we learn more and more just what a dangerous despot Bush is, a madman with the power to wage war at will, destroy the Constitution on a whim and invoke his own perception of unchecked Presidential power by ignoring the system of checks and balances that used to be part of our system of government."

Or this from scottsmith blog ...

"You know, I get the impression that George W. Bush really doesn't understand the concept of checks and balances as it relates to government. I think he really believes his government is an autocracy, and has used the attacks of 9/11 to justify an alarming abuse of power by the executive branch. Bush believes that, since we are at war, the Constitution essentially grants him unlimited power to protect America. But we're not at war -- Congress hasn't declared war -- and what we're supposedly at war with is a noun. Terrorism. Ostensibly to prevent another 9/11 attack from happening. However, the Bush administration does not strike me as a bunch of people with their act together, and they are power-mad. Secret military courts, holding suspects indefinitely without benefit of counsel, suspending the Fourth Amendment in the hunt for Al-Qaeda terrorists -- all this and more to present the illusion of safety, the illusion of security. Despite all of our efforts, Osama Bin Laden remains at large, and the Bush administration would rather just put their collective heads in the sand and pretend the man doesn't exist anymore. For all we know, he is regrouping with his operatives in planning another attack. And what we do know about Al-Qaeda is that they our patient, willing to wait years before carrying out an attack, and the 9/11 Commission recently gave the Bush administration poor marks in homeland security preparedness. The report, issued on Dec. 5, 2005, gave the administration "more F's than A's," 41 grades in all to measure the progress of the Administration in implementing security proposals by the 9/11 Commission... I have my doubts that any report concluding that what the Bush administration's wiretapping program was illegal would result in any change in the program. Bush will do what he wants, for as long as he wants, while there is a Republican majority in Congress. There seems to be only a handful of Republicans who have openly criticized Bush and his administration's programs. Benjamin Franklin quite possibly had predicted the state of U.S. politics, circa 2006, when he said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." And thanks to the sheep of the "red" states, who blindly support Bush as if he were royalty, our government is moving slowly but surely down that path. Welcome to the Bush autocracy."

I am telling you AMERICA, this is not just gibberish from disgruntled liberals... This is a dreadful, frightening situation.  Please read this from BUZZ FLASH'S MAUREEN FARRELL...

"God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values"

by Maureen Farrell

"God does not make cowardly nations free." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

A couple weeks ago, while asserting that the Founding Founders intended for the U.S. government to be infused with Christianity, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Holocaust was able to flourish in Germany because of Europe's secular ways. "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" Scalia asked a congregation at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue. "I don't think so."

One might expect regular citizens to be ignorant of history, but a Supreme Court Justice? Does he imagine that the phrase "Gott mit Uns" was a German clothier's interpretation of "Got Milk"?

If photographic evidence of the Third Reich's Christian leanings were not enough, Hitler's own speeches and writings prove, at the very least, that he presented many of the same faith-based arguments heard in America today. Religion in the schools? Hitler was for it. Intellectuals who practiced "anti-Christian, smug individualism"? According to Hitler, their days were numbered. Divine Providence's role in shaping Germany's ultimate victory? Who could argue? In other words, there is enough historical evidence to color Scalia deluded. Writing for Free Inquiry, John Patrick Michael Murphy explained:

"Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of the today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it."

For anyone wanting even more proof, Mein Kampf is chock full of the Fuhrer's musings on God. ("I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," Hitler wrote). But anti-Semitic rants aside, some of Hitler's religious musings are interchangeable with Mr. Bush's.

Hitler was raised a Catholic and spoke of his faith in God, yet, singling out his rants against religion, politicians and pastors continue to characterize him as a pagan barbarian. Such distortions are convenient -- particularly in an age where propaganda concerning "moral values" is readily gobbled up and Christian nation legislation waits in the wings -- but, to paraphrase the Bible, overlooking the truth will not make us free.

Scalia, who also cited the Bible to claim that government "derives its moral authority from God," is hardly alone in his assertions. Leo Strauss, the philosopher who has influenced neoconservativism, and by proxy, George Bush's America, felt that religion, like deception, was crucial to maintaining social order. Meanwhile, neoconservative kingpin Irving Kristol has argued similar points -- bragging about how easy it is to fool the public into accepting the government's actions while arguing that America's Founding Fathers were wrong to insist on the separation of church and state. Why? According to Jim Lobe, it's because religion, as Strauss and his disciples see it, is "absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control."

We must all stay very vigilant and watch every move these despots are making in front of our eyes or BEHIND OUR BACKS... Are we will follow the people of Germany  in the history books and future generations will read about the Descent Into Barbarism the story of how Germany, a stable and modern country, in less than a single lifetime led ... the Third German Empire... ending with the demise of Nazi Germany in 1945.  

Only it will say "DESENT INTO BARBARISM...THE STORY OF HOW AMERICA, A STABLE AND MODERN COUNTRY, IN LESS THAN A SINGLE LIFETIME LED... the BUSH NEOCON AMERICA EMPIRE ... ENDING WITH THE DEMISE OF  NEOCON AMERICA IN 2020... Amen, thinkingblue

PS:  Please read the following articles very carefully, they all give clues as to what is in store for us all in FASCIST AMERICA and upon digesting this information... Any person who will still  vote in November 2006 for a politician who supports this fascist regime... YOU WILL BE TO BLAME FOR AMERICA'S DOWNFALL!

Bye-Bye Miss American (First Amendment) Pie

by Doris Colmes
by Doris Colmes

Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos was outraged. He had just been disciplined after writing internal memos alleging that a police officer had blatantly lied in order to obtain a search warrant. But, when he continued to urge his supervisors to dismiss this pending criminal case because of the very specific police misconduct involved, Caballos’s advice was not only rejected, but he was transferred to a lesser job farther from his home, and denied a promotion.

The result of Caballos’s indignation with the apparent collusion between the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Court System was a lawsuit against county officials in which he alleged that those county officials, including then district attorney Gil Garcetti, had retaliated against him for speaking out within his office.

As reported by David G. Savage of the Los Angeles Times, the case did not fly in Los Angeles County, and, eventually, wound up at the Supreme Court.

So, what’s the big deal about this kind of thing? Happens all the time: Employees find something either unethical or illegal being done by their employers, "blow the whistle," the problem gets fixed and everyone breathes a sigh of relief.

Not this time: This time, the entire First Amendment was eliminated. When the Supreme Court was done with this case, the Constitutional Rights of the First Amendment which provides Americans with freedom of speech, was no longer available for public employees outraged by the misdeeds of their employers or co-workers.

As stated in Public Citizen on June 1, 2006, the Supreme Court came to a 5-4 decision in the case of Ceballos v Garcetti, deciding that, as of May 29, 2006, when this edict was handed down, government whistle-blowers will no longer be protected by the First Amendment

The Miami Herald, on June 5, 2006 said it all: "Informed, courageous workers who dare to point out malfeasance or dangerous conditions in their workplace do not have First Amendment protection for free speech in statements they make ‘pursuant to their official duties.’ This includes reporting any and all levels of guilt in every governmental system, including police, courts, public education and healthcare, along with all the others. Now, if someone inside the government rips us off, oh well, we’re just the taxpayers and therefore expendable.

Thus, for example, if a co-worker sees a public education official sexually abuse a child, or sees his cop cohorts stealing weed from the evidence room and then "lightin’ up" in the cruiser, it’s a no-go. And, if a worker within the welfare system witnesses the misappropriation of funds by a criminal employee, to the point that there is a significant cut in aid for the starving children of a homeless family, there will be no recourse. It is "put up with it and shut up about it" all the way.

Let’s take a look at the Court which handed down this edict: In the majority were Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (the court’s newest justice), as were Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The Bush administration, also, backed this decision wholeheartedly, citing "The U.S. Government’s interest as ‘the nation’s largest public employer.’"

Stephen Kohn, board chairman for the National Whistleblower Center, said, "It’s a devastating decision that, in practice, obliterates protections for about 90% of public workers."

When Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas finalized the removal of First Amendment protection to over that 90% of public workers cited by Stephen Kohn, they effectively shut down all ability to bring to public knowledge any misdeeds whatsoever committed by our government and/or its employees.

So, why am I raising such a fuss about all of the above? Well, folks, once again, what is happening here and now in the United States of America – our beloved democracy – is exactly what happened in 1930’s Germany. In their final step towards complete empowerment, the Nazi party managed to take over Germany’s courts. Once that was done, no one, not anyone anywhere in that country, had recourse to the legal system to pursue individual rights.

Loyalty oaths take precedence: Do these oaths define loyalty to whatever branch of corporation or government has hired the person – no matter how insanely or criminally corrupt it becomes? Or do these oaths define loyalty to the ethics, truth and honor that make for a stellar and valuable employee?

In Nazi Germany, loyalty oaths meant choosing either blind obedience or choosing death. The SS (Schutzstaffe, translation: "Protective Squadron") was formed as an elite unit, with its own ranks, insignia and uniforms, the duties of which were to protect Adolf Hitler personally and also to administer the concentration camps. At enrollment into their deliberately secretive training, each new, young SS candidate was given a little German Shepherd pup to mentor, train, play with and nurture: Making these pups become trusted and beloved companions was more than encouraged, it was applauded by the commanders.

At graduation, after more than a year-long training period, these S.S. candidates were lined up, with their young dogs sitting obediently at their feet, and were ordered to shoot them. Right then and there. Shoot them dead. And why? It was a simple test of loyalty. Either you live up to your loyalty oath and shoot the damn dog, while – finally – understanding what is meant by "blind obedience" or we do away with you, since you are obviously not a good Nazi. No dogs ever survived. And, thus, when it came to killing kids in the streets, or torturing people in those concentration camps, these men simply followed orders. They had learned the lesson of blind obedience well.

Is this what we are fostering here? Loyalty to a government that is obviously no longer the democracy for the people and OF the people that it started out to be?

Fascism, like fog, creeps in silently till all views are obliterated. One tiny little step at a time, on those proverbial cat’s feet which don’t show claws until it’s too late – until the courts are taken over and there is no further recourse for anyone.

All this began well before May 29, 2006. Free speech, for example, had been ruled as permissible only in designated "free speech zones" – on pain of being arrested – just prior to last election’s party conventions. And now, the courts have been preempted. But the clincher for fascism, for dictatorship becoming a fact of life in America, has to do with those infamous "signing statements."

What is a "signing statement?" According to John W. Dean, former presidential counselor: "Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner – for example, report to the Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush’s signing statement will flat out reject that law, and state that he will construe the law ‘in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.’ The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all." (Findlaw.com, January 13, 2006)

Since coming into office, President Bush has negated well over 750 (!) congressional bills that have reached his desk, simply because he didn’t like them. Using "signing statements" simply bolsters presidential powers. Are these powers now verging on dictatorship? Is the blatant arrogance of simply "signing away" laws of which he does not approve a rather significant "goose-step" in the march towards fascistic despotism? You decide.

And, just as in 1930’s Germany, there is no protest. Some eyeball rolling perhaps – and then back to watching "American Idol." But that’s what Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda maestro counted on: A nation of "Sheeple" whose primary value system is "NIMBY," ("Not In My Back Yard.") Meaning that, unless an individual employee is directly affected by not being able to speak up and inform others of governmental misdeed which he/she has directly witnessed and of which he/she has proof, it don’t matter a bit.

What’s next? Will persons be arrested for writing articles of dissent? Will persons be "disappeared" for exposing corruption à la Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame incident? Hey, why not? That is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany: Dissent, speaking out, became a crime. And bringing one’s cause to court simply caused amusement for the judges. Just Google Pastor Niehmueller….(that is, if our courts decide that we will still be allowed uncensored access to Google within the foreseeable future.)

June 26, 2006

Doris Colmes, MSW, [send her mail] is an independent writer in Portland, Oregon. Her book, "The Iron Butterfly" was published in 2002, and she received the Kay Snow Award for non-fiction in 2003. She can be reached via: www.doriscolmes.com.

 

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Nobel Laureate Flays Bush
    By Haroon Siddiqui
    The Toronto Star

    Thursday 01 June 2006

    Gunter Grass, celebrated German novelist, playwright, poet, essayist, sculptor and commentator, is a living legend. When this Nobel laureate speaks, people listen.

    His address in Berlin to the annual Congress of International PEN, the worldwide organization of writers, had been much anticipated, especially given his long admonition to intellectuals to speak up on the political and moral issues of the day.

    He himself has done so all his life, most famously against the Nazi past and contemporary neo-Nazism and xenophobia. He has not always been right, of course, having opposed post-Cold War German unification.

    Grass, at 78 still spry and energetic, quickly gets into his topic, "The hubris of the world's only superpower," and proceeds to offer a sweeping critique.

    His words find resonance among the writers gathered here, including another Nobel laureate, South African novelist Nadine Gordimer.

    "Armed force is used by this superpower to defeat the terrorism it is itself responsible for," Grass says, citing Osama bin Laden, the by-product of American support for Afghan jihadists in the 1980s. "The war (on Iraq), deliberately started in blatant disdain of the laws of civilized societies, produces still more terror."

    Yet George W. Bush is searching for new enemies and targets.

    "Dictatorships, and there are plenty to choose from, are referred to as rogue states and threatened vociferously with military strikes, including the deployment of nuclear weapons. But it only further stabilizes the fundamentalist power systems in those countries.

    "Whether the term 'axis of evil' is used to refer to Iran or North Korea or Syria, politics could not be more stupid and hence more dangerous. Yet the entire world is watching and pretending to be powerless."

    Grass quotes liberally from the blistering speech given last year by British playwright Harold Pinter in accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature: "The United States supported and, in many cases, engendered every right-wing military dictatorship in the world after World War II - Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador and, of course, Chile ...

    "Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place in those countries ... but you wouldn't know it. The crimes of the U.S. have been systematic, constant, vicious, and remorseless but very few people have actually talked about them.

    "You have to hand it to America. It has exercised quite a clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's brilliant, even witty, a highly successful act of hypnosis. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal?"

    Having cited Pinter, Grass adds his own condemnation of "the hypocritical method of keeping the body count" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "Although we meticulously keep count of the victims of terror attacks - terrible though their number is - nobody bothers to count the dead caused by American bombs or rocket attacks."

    The death toll from America's "three Gulf Wars," as he called it - "the first one having been fought by Saddam Hussein against Iran, with support from the United States" - runs into hundreds of thousands.

    "In Western evaluation, not only are there first-, second- or third class citizens among the living, but also among the dead."

    As for Bush and Tony Blair, he says, "whenever their lies lack persuasive power, they put God into harness.

 Hypocrisy is written all over their faces.

 They are like the priests and missionaries of old who used to bless weapons and carry death with their Bibles into distant countries."

    The enormity of U.S.-initiated death, destruction and torture, places a burden on the citizens of democracy to be more vigilant: "Who wanted this war? What are the lies that have disguised its true purpose? Who profits from it? Whose shares go up because of it?"

    In a post-speech interview, I ask Grass about governments ignoring the electorate between elections, as those did in Britain, Italy and Spain, which joined the war on Iraq despite overwhelming public opposition.

    "In the last 10 years, lobbies have become stronger than the government, in the U.S. and other democracies," Grass responds. "They cannot change policy, for example, on health without the pharmaceutical industry, or farming policy without the farm groups. Lobbies are too powerful," the most powerful being the ones wanting war.

    Even though Germany resisted the Iraq war, there has been a change of atmosphere since the election of a conservative government (just like in Canada).

    "There are voices in this country saying, 'the U.S. is our ally, we have to stand by it, we have to do this and we have to do that for it.

    "I hope it will not develop like that in Canada," Grass says.

    --------