Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Tyranny In View--The Not So Stealth Obama Coup


As I have written before in my Tyranny Closing In—The Stealth Coup, I fear for the future of American democracy because of the power Obama and his cronies have now amassed.

Of course, there are no certainties here. One can judge only by the character of these people, their ideologies, their capabilities, world history, and what is possible and probable. Undeniably, this is not science but informed intuition. And I submit, it is all that we can go on.

Having said that see Joshua Muravchik's ”Devastating: Obama's Abandonment of Democracy and Human Rights”
The new president signaled his intent on the eve of his inauguration, when he told editors of the Washington Post that democracy was less important than “freedom from want and freedom from fear. If people aren’t secure, if people are starving, then elections may or may not address those issues, but they are not a perfect overlay.”

Also Kyle-Anne Shiver’s”Barack Obama, the Quintessential Liberal Fascist”
When Saul Alinsky began building his community-organization movement in 1930s Chicago, observers were watching Alinsky with one eye, while with the other eye observing the building of communist and fascist movements in Europe. It wasn't hard then to see in Alinsky's programs at home, elements of the people's revolution from Russia, as well as some of the same "in your face" tactics being employed by Hitler's Brownshirts.

What Alinsky's critics saw was the burgeoning of a national movement, the carefully manipulated construction of people's organizations, which all had two elements in common: (1) a collectivist creed, which denied the existence of personal responsibility; and (2) an amoral dogma, in which all means were justified by an imaginary utopian end.

Also Victor Davis Hanson’s ”Our Road to Oceania”
In George Orwell's allegorical novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four," the picture of "Big Brother" appears constantly in the adoring media.

Perceived enemies are everywhere - supposedly plotting to undo the benevolent egalitarianism of Big Brother. Citizens assemble each morning to scream hatred for two minutes at pictures of the supposed public traitor Emmanuel Goldstein. The "Ministry of Truth" swears that the former official Goldstein is responsible for everything that goes wrong in Oceania.

In Orwell's Oceania, there is a compliant media that offers "Newspeak" - recycled government bulletins from the Ministry of Truth. "Doublethink" means you can believe at the same time in two opposite beliefs.

America is not Oceania, but some of this is beginning to sound a little too familiar.

Also Declan McCullagh’s ” Bill would give president emergency control of Internet”
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Also ” FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS: Locations and Executive Orders” says
There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) should Martial Law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general's signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. Ask yourself if you really want to be on Ashcroft's list.

Also John Byme’s item, “Obama will bypass Congress to detain suspects indefinitely” item:
President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges.

The move, which was controversial when the idea was first floated in The Washington Post in May, has sparked serious concern among civil liberties advocates. Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus -- a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" -- which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention.
More here.

We must understand that in applying much of the legal structure erected to fight terror, such as the Patriot Act, the government defines who is a terrorist. Any individual or group can be labeled “terrorist”. Consider that the Department of Homeland Security’s report, ” Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“, targets as potential terrorists “most conservatives and libertarians in the country”--Stephen Gordon.

And so on, an on, and on.

It is clear that Obama and his close advisers, his cabinet, his czars, and top Congressional Democrats are convinced that they can eliminate mass poverty in the United States, prevailing inequality, the entrenched evils of capitalism, nuclear proliferation, and violence in the world. The only hindrances are those damn libertarians, conservatives, and Republicans—the vast right wing.

They have two solutions to this perceived and believed massive social injustice and violence. One is the stealth coup I described in the link to my blog above. The other is an outright coup. Now that all the logistics (much of which has been justified by the war on terror, illegal immigration, and the current depression) are in place, one thing remains. A great national emergency, such as the the burning of the Reichstadt in 1933, for the Nazis. For us, it can be a suicide bombing of a major Federal building, the assassination of a high federal official, the loss of thousands of lives in a gas attack, and so on. This crisis can be actual or contrived. Anything that would legitimize a declaration of a national emergency, the assumption of near total power by Obama, the postponement of elections, extensive censorship and control of the major media, and the “temporary” incarceration of opponents.

Beware and be alert.


  1. While any suspension of constitutional rights certainly are horrid, you must confess that twenty to thirty years of economic mismanagement has had its toll on America. One cannot borrow one self to wealth indefinetely.

    At the end, the USA has an extremely inefficient governing system, which is clearly not adapted to entertain a de-facto empire.

    While I'm certainly no fan of empire-building, I'll understand if some segments of the ruling class in America would feel more comfortable with an emperor.

    I wonder if you have watched the series HBO Rome?

    BTW, given the current situation, the USA would almost need a president like this:


  2. 1) There is absolutely no guarantee that an 'emperor' would be better at running an economy. If anything, history shows exactly the opposite. On average,unelected regimes tend to have basket case economies and their citizens are general vastly below the standard of living of the 'extremely inefficient' western democracies. Corruption tends to be a major issue in unelected regimes.

    2) You might get a good emperor but then on the other hand, you might get a bad one. They never last for long. The lives of millions should not depend on the mental stability or morale values of one individual. The LESS power the government has, the better for the safety of its citizens.

    The example of Rome is a fine example of exactly why it is BAD NEWS to put ones hopes in absolute power. The Romans could of ruled the world if they didn't periodically butcher each other in civil wars usually for one man's ambitions.

    In Pharsalus, some 2000 odd years ago now, stood almost 100,000 legionaries including Caesar's veternas from Gaul. Instead of crushing an rival like Parthia, they butchered each other in yet another civil war over the dispute of two men. A repeating theme in Roman history. Absolute rule results in waste. Waste in money and waste in lives.

  3. Well, to be frank. It was impossible to have an empire and in the same time an oligarchic republic governing in Rome.

    The early principate actually managed to salvage the class conflicts inside Rome and probably prolonged Rome's life. The last hundred years of the republic was a constant conflict between the optimates and the populists, where neither faction really could see to the best of the people or the empire.

    The provinces were run as private dominions with extensive looting to finance the electoral campaigns of politicians. The republic was doomed.

    The principate worked quite well between 27 BC and 235 AD. Then it started to quickly deteriorate. Not that it was a good system at all, but probably one which prolonged the existence of the Roman Empire.

    The conquest of Parthia would hardly have increased the security of Rome. Neither would the conquest of the entire world. The Roman Empire almost was too large at the end of the reign of Augustus to say the least.

  4. Prof Rummel: You really are grasping for straws here. You've gone from interesting academic to raving mad. What's next, a blog post about Obamab being born in Kenya?