When did fascism actually take hold in the US?

[lawrocket 3]

Sure. Our "Greatest President" suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus and declared martial law! Civil Liberties? Ha! Fuck em! The ends justify the means, so long as the ends are viewed to be the right ones - especially in hindsight.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I knew about that but I was referring to the particular acts mentioned.

Back then they hated him worse than they hate Bush now.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Not that I know of and I am pretty well read in Lincoln history as well as having visited nearly every Lincoln exhibit in Illinois, at one time or another.

I don't know for sure but I highly doubt it

http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm

During his terms as president, he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution.
The writ of Habeas Corpus protects Americans from being unjustly imprisoned. Without it, law is a sham. The writ creates the gap between freedom and despotism. Its origin dates back to the formation of our country, and the tenet that all men have equality under the law. The writ ensures that no on can be unjustly imprisoned. Any prisoner feeling this right is being abused has the ability to petition to be seen before a judge, who can declare his arrest unlawful and have him released. Yet, during the initial year of the American Civil War, Lincoln used his power and removed that right, first in Baltimore, New York, and eventually the entire union. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ before he made an official proclamation. Joshua Kleinfeld, an author who has researched this issue, wrote that "when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.
Lincoln contended that he removed the Writ in order to ensure victory and preserve the union. In fact he preserved more power for himself and removed a great deal from the United States legislative and judicial branches. The first proclamation to remove the Writ of Habeas Corpus was made in September of 1862. Not only did this proclamation, which had no scheduled end, remove the writ, it also established Marshall law. It gave full power to close down "hostile, anti war newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting the war.
Lincoln removed a great deal of power from the legislative branch with this proclamation. He was not empowered under the Constitution to make such a declaration. In fact, that right belonged to Congress alone. Roger Taney, Supreme Court Chief Justice, contended that Article I of the Constitution declares: "a state of rebellion is the only time when Congress could declare the writ removed." He also believed: "This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive branch.."
The Supreme Court went on to order Lincoln to bring prisoners who had been arrested without reason before the court. He refused on the notion that the writ's suspension gave him that right to do so. Lincoln contended that, "It was not believed that any law was violated". The fact that he got away with suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus gave more power to the presidency during a time of war than ever before. Nearly 100 years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt, would once again abolish the writ in order to imprison Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Lincoln set a precedent which F.D.R later used to justify his own wartime actions.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/ProvostMarshal.htm

In 1862, a partisan character began to be attached to the arrests. It was charged that many were arrested purely on account of politics. In some of the Western States these arrests influenced the elections of the year. In Ohio, an old man of seventy, Dr. Edson B. Olds, formerly a member of the United States House of Representatives for six years,was arrested and taken from his home at night and sent to Fort Lafayette, charged with discouraging enlistments in the army. During his detention in prison he was nominated and elected to the State legislature. In New Jersey, a Democratic legislature sent to the United States Senate James W. Wall, who had been arrested and confined in Fort Lafayette the previous year, apparently for his criticism of the administration in the newspapers with which he was connected. Following the election, in which the administration party suffered heavy losses, Secretary Stanton issued an order releasing all persons who had been arrested for discouraging enlistments.
Many of the strongest friends of the administration felt that the policy of miscellaneous arrests should end. Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, who had written a minority opinion in the Dred Scott case while a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, on October 18, 1862, published a pamphlet in opposition to the course of President Lincoln, even taking the ground that he had no right to issue the forthcoming emancipation proclamation, and criticizing the exercise of arbitrary power

How many persons were thus arrested and imprisoned without warrant during the course of the war cannot now be settled with any degree of accuracy, according to the statement of General F. C. Ainsworth, when chief of the Record and Pension Office. The records of the Federal commissary-general of prisoners from February, 1862, until the close of the war show that 13,535 citizens were arrested and confined under various charges. General Ainsworth is certain, however, that many arrests, possibly several thousand, were made by military commanders or provost-marshals, and were not reported to the commissary-general of prisoners.

[lawrocket 3]

Hey, Jeanne:

You sound like a Southern cracker writing things like that about Lincoln. Is that the Stars and the Bars wavign in the background?

Lincoln committed the greatest atrocity on American civil liberties ever done. I guess it can be said that FDR limited his trampling of rights on only a select portion of the population instead of everyone.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hairyjuan 0]

two pertinent quotes from Comrade Lincoln: "What i see in the future causes me to tremble in fear for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and the MONEY POWER will prey upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth of the nation is aggregate in the hands of a few and the REPUBLIC is destroyed."

"To sin by silence when they sould protest makes cowards of men"

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You sound like a Southern cracker writing things like that about Lincoln. Is that the Stars and the Bars wavign in the background?

Well I certainly aint no DAYUM Yankee

[hairyjuan 0]

PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE-read the mass psychology of fascism attached below.

it is from www.christianism.com[/url

it is no stretch.

the second is from [url]www.hermes-press.com

and why has Hollywood Producer Aron Russo released his NEW documentary: America- from freedom to fascism?

The website is www.freedomtofascism.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

***We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times,
Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had
been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But, the world
is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The
supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable
to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.
- Brother David Rockefeller -
C.F.R. and Trilateral Commission Founder

Quote

Is it possible that the above will never be attempted again?

Technically it can't be attempted "again" until it stops.

• Quote

[warpedskydiver 0]

• Quote

[hairyjuan 0]

an other ilustration of fascism in amerika

these are the same symbols hitler had on his podium

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[tr027 0]

Here's a link to that very informative, insightful film:

America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&ei=EA2iSP36LYH2qgKjy6XeAQ&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&hl=en#

My answer to the original question is fascism got its foot in the door when the private banking group of the Federal Reserve ascended to power.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[nanook 1]

Quote

Here's a link to that very informative, insightful film:

America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&ei=EA2iSP36LYH2qgKjy6XeAQ&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&hl=en#

My answer to the original question is fascism got its foot in the door when the private banking group of the Federal Reserve ascended to power.

So, what's the name of the guy that owns the Federal Reserve?

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Every government has degrees of fascism. To completely eliminate it you'd have to eliminate the president/premier/prime minister (i.e. the executive authority) and have a representative body make all the decisions. You'd also have to eliminate government economic controls like anti-monopoly laws and control of the federal reserve.

That being said, we're certainly sliding more in that direction. What are some characteristics of fascism?

Quote

1) Centralization of authority under a single leader. We're definitely seeing more of that lately.

Or the dissementaion of that centralized power to majot corporations; Neo-fascism.

Quote

2) Government control over the economy. Nowadays every time gas prices go up there are new calls for the government to step in.

Onyl if it's for the gov's own benefit. Gov control for the benefit of the masses, true benefit is called Socialism.

Quote

3) A policy of aggressive nationalism. No question there.

Treu.

Quote

4) Widespread supression of opposition. This is happening now to a minor degree, although it's a lot better now than it was during the 1950's and 1960's, where supporting communism could actually get you arrested and blacklisted. Nowadays the opposition is just called names.

True, as with Reagan blacklisting hundreds of Hollywood actors. Reagan was in fascism training right after he chickened out of WWII and the war ended.

Quote

One unique characteristic of the US is that we're being convinced that we NEED a more fascist government to "take care of us." How many times have you heard "we have to stand up to terrorism" used as a reason for additional government control/intervention/surveillance? It's a way to give government more control through stirring up fear. Machiavelli gives a good outline of how to do this in The Prince.

At the same time, we need a better distribution of wealth, one that allows for class mobility which has all but gone away.

Quote

To answer the original question - I think the date that it became more fascist than the founding fathers ever imagined was the date Woodrow Wilson got us involved in World War 1. Up until that date we were an insular country effectively minding our own business (and doing pretty well at it.) He convinced us that we needed to get involved in a war on the other side of the globe for questionable reasons, and we did, without a second thought.

Is going to war in a foreign land for the so-called good of others a sign of fascism? Isn't that more like Imperialism? Fascism is more intra, Imperialism more inter.

Quite obviously there were 2 main steps toward the fascism we have today:

1) The 1886 Railway decision where a corporation is a person.

2) Jan 20, 1981. The debt was stable in a crappy economy, the USSR was engaged in Afghanistan with a military that didn't have the ability to reach out and touch, Fascist Ronnie deficit spent us into a trippling of the debt under the fear/guise of "the Commies are coming," FR killed unions, all in the name of Nationalism.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The greatest jumps in the past 100 years with this were made by FDR. Back until the early 1900s, the states had the greatest authority. Then, the "New Deal" came along. Welcome to a large federal government.

How did the New Deal subvert states? It was the gov supplementing their position, but how did it displace the power of the individual states?

Quote

Once again, the bastard child of the New Deal.

Sure, we should let the oil companies collude so that you can be assured there will be no fascism. It's only fascusm when the gov benefits; how is the giv benefitting when they control gas, electricity, the banks, etc? You call monopolization and corporate control a fair economic system, I call that neo-fascism / corporatism.

Quote

Yep. The interred Japanese knew that all too well.

Japanese-American internment is an example of Nationalsim???? That's more like fear-mongering ignorance. It's not Nationalsim: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nationalism

1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

Quote

Google a "switch in time saves nine."

Make an argument.

You think basic, small examples of Socialism are fascism when that is what fascism is at all.

Neo-fascism, which is what we have now, totalitarianism is left to places like N Korea, is full of corporatism, problem is that you think that's a good thing when corporations can subvert the people, you call it free trade.

As for your hate of FDR freeing the people from the corrpution of Harding, Coolidge and early-on Hoover, 12 years (or 11+) of shoving everything to the rich ended up in great wealth disparities, record low taxes (altho FR came close) since WWI and of course, the banks and market crashing. FDR was teh people saying they had enough of Republican politics. Laugher is that the R's just became AFU after a run of 52 years from 1860 to 1912 where the R's held 44 years of the WH. This was the R's tirning ot shit after saving the country in 1860.

So the point is, FDR, the New Deal and all that was a product of the corrupt right.

Finally, if you knew history well, you'd know it was Hoover who enacted the biggest income tax increase in US history: 25% to 63% - 260% incr in June 1932. The New Deal was more about distributing it more than raising taxes, altho there were tax increases in the New Deal(s), they were puny by comparison to Hoover's. Maybe you read the Cato Institute too much, they also claim FDR tripled taxes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

In 1919 the 18th amendment, Prohibition of Alcohol, was ratified.

I believe this was the most blatant example of the Federal Government as Nanny State up until that time.

True, but didn't the Civil War trump that by a long shot?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>The greatest jumps in the past 100 years with this were made by FDR.

Yeah, I can see that. I think Wilson had more to do with growth of presidential power, but you could make an argument that FDR did more to expand federal government than anyone before him.

Well, Wilson DID urge passing of the Sedition Act of 1918. That was the law that banned Americans from using disloyal or abusive language about the government during a time of war. Plenty of American citizens, the most famous of whch was Eugene Debs, were tossed into the clink for protesting the war.

While we have talk by government officials about the dangers of speaking out against the war, I think it's instructive to look at past history. Neither Bush nor Cheney seem to suggest passing a law against protesting it.

I think it indicates that we are still moving forward...

So now GWB / Cheney are progressives? WOW. Whatever sedition was present then, it was typical in that we were 40 years from the abolition of black/white restrooms, etc. GWB/Cheney were grossly regressive. Love how the so-called non-Repubs poke their head that way every now and then.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You trust media to be unbiased?

Reporters as well as editors are just as sneaky as Goebels, free press my ass.

SO what if they are/aren't? You can believe who/want you want or start your own media org.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hey, Jeanne:

You sound like a Southern cracker writing things like that about Lincoln. Is that the Stars and the Bars wavign in the background?

Lincoln committed the greatest atrocity on American civil liberties ever done. I guess it can be said that FDR limited his trampling of rights on only a select portion of the population instead of everyone.

WOW, FDR saved the nation from the Great Republican Depression, Lincoln saved the country from being forever severed and for ending a massive attrocity of human slavery and you're offened. WOW. What would you have done to end slavery and secession.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

two pertinent quotes from Comrade Lincoln: "What i see in the future causes me to tremble in fear for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and the MONEY POWER will prey upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth of the nation is aggregate in the hands of a few and the REPUBLIC is destroyed."

"To sin by silence when they sould protest makes cowards of men"

I agree with you, slavery was a good thing

[tr027 0]

[nanook 1]

Quote

So, what's the name of the guy that owns the Federal Reserve?

[hairyjuan 0]

When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross!

www.uscivilflags.org

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[tr027 0]

Thought so. . .
Same old conspiracy theory tin-hatter bullshit.

Yep, typical ostrich head-in-the-sand reaction even when attempts to remove audit restrictions are defeated and Greenspan gets knighted for destroying our economy... yup all is in perfect order here.. different strokes for different folks, to each their own and all that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2177814.stm

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Here's a link to that very informative, insightful film:

America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&ei=EA2iSP36LYH2qgKjy6XeAQ&q=america+freedom+to+fascism&hl=en#

My answer to the original question is fascism got its foot in the door when the private banking group of the Federal Reserve ascended to power.

Saw this film a couple years back. The title is far more sensational than the content, and I don't think the title fits what the film is all about. If anything, its title gives people like nanook the ammo to immediately discredit the film without having watched it.

I think the highlight of the film was when Aaron Russo politely and repeatedly asked the IRS official to show him what part of the US Constitution mandates an income tax...and the official just got angry and walked out of the interview.

Also, being that Mr. Russo was a wealthy, very accomplished and intelligent man with not much of a history as a conspiracy theorist (as opposed to someone like Alex Jones, a man who makes a living as one), the film has heaps more credibility than something like Loose Change. It is worth a watch for any American regardless of political leanings, IMO.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[billvon 2,435]

>I think the highlight of the film was when Aaron Russo politely and
>repeatedly asked the IRS official to show him what part of the US
>Constitution mandates an income tax...

?? Probably the same part that mandates an Air Force. In other words, it's not there, but "it's not in the Constitution" does not equal "therefore you can't do it." Which is good, because it was written well over 200 years ago.