Are we now moving into the final phase in our transition to a full...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

dictatorship? In other words, do you think BushCo now appears ready to openly defy the authority/decisions of the other governmental branches and start backing up anything they wish to enact/do with brute force?

And secondly, is it too late to stop them?

Germany 1933-35: Finalization of the Transition to Dictatorship

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfcUXNyBWC0

[Hippo_Tron]

1. Not in the model you propose

Hitler was popular and he was much better able to silence those who disagreed with him.

Our transition to dictatorship is certainly not going to revolve around George W Bush. Dictators don't come to power with 26% approval ratings.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. I hope you're right...

...but I'm not convinced an approval rating is terribly relevant.

Also, I'm not sure Hitler was all that popular in the 1933. Below is an excerpt from a book review by Bernard Weiner of the Crisis Papers of a book titled "Defying Hitler" written by a man named Sebastian Haffner who was a German citizen during Hitler's rise:

Haffner tries to solve the riddle of the easy acceptance of fascism in Hitler's Third Reich. In March of 1933, a majority of German citizens did not vote for Hitler. "What happened to that majority? Did they die? Did they disappear from the face of the earth? Did they become Nazis at this late stage? How was it possible that there was not the slightest visible reaction from them" as Hitler, installed by the authorities as Chancellor, began slowly and then more quickly consolidating power and moving Germany from a democratic state to a totalitarian one?

Source: http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

3. In a multi-party system it isn't pro-Hitler, anti-Hitler

The conservative party formed a coalition with the Nazis giving them a majority. The SPD and the KPD were more concerned about fighting with each other than keeping Hitler out of power.

The Nazis only got 44% in 1933 (using police brutality and other tactics to get some of it) but the other 56% of the electorate weren't inherently anti-Hitler. 70% of the country doesn't approve of Bush, which would make it extremely hard for him to gain absolute power.

[MatrixEscape]

4. However,

if a situation came about where Martial Law was declared, would it facilitate absolute power for this mis-Administration?

What would be the potential response and possible remedies to such a scenario? How long could a false-flag inspired Martial Law continue?

From what I understand, in such a scenario, all rights are suspended. Also, all media and public, as well as private, utilities are placed in direct, government control.

In the light of the ideas of an "endless war" against terrorism, it is not hard to envision and endless state of emergency here.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. Which would seem to indicate...

...he (Hitler) wasn't really all that popular. As for anti-Hitler sentiment, I don't know.

While there is a great deal of anti-Bush sentiment in the U.S., advise and consent is not the way of the dictator -- The Executive controls the military, and I think Blackwater. I think the question is: are they prepared to use them domestically?

[MADem]

7. I have friends who were living in Germany when Hitler came to power

They weren't Jews, either. Lutherans, actually, not rich, working class German family in what ended up to be the Russkie Sector. They didn't like the system at all, hated it, but they were scared shitless and were taught (they were kids at the time) to be QUIET, don't EVER criticize the government, don't talk too much, keep your head down. They had shitty neighbors who used to rat out others in their neighborhood for the tiniest infractions...they remain fearful of authority to this day. They ran like hell at the end; they believed, and there was some argument to support their fears, that the Russkies would kill them if they caught them.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Sounds terrifying, are we about to learn first hand? I wonder. nt.

[bdamomma]

25. you will see mass panic if it comes down to that, or are WE THE PEOPLE

going to fight back.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. I'd love to think that we'd...

...fight back non-violently and en masse in a well organized MLK/Gandhi like manner, but...

[AndyTiedye]

10. If There is another "Terra Attack", We Will Be Told His Approval Rating is 99%

[glowing]

6. I'm not sure the brute force would be as necessary... people are already

stuck to their debt and hooked on the next glitzy I-phone invention.... Its much easier to run a pretend democracy than a real dictatorship.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. This certainly makes the most sense...

...so long as Congress and our Judiciary remain sufficiently subservient to BushCo. What I'm wondering is what would happen if Congress somehow found its footing and started following the legal advice of someone like John Dean? What kind of showdown would ultimately play out?

I believe, but am by no means certain, that BushCo would make use of brute force if necessary in order to prevail in such a showdown.

[AndyTiedye]

12. I Think Congress Already Knows This, Which is Why Impeachment is "Off the Table"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. I share that suspicion -- I think they want no part of such a showdown. nt.

[MADem]

16. No need to use brute force. There isn't any left over here--they're all in Iraq and the Stan

All he has to do is have the Supremes rule that whatever the Congress is objecting to is "legal."

Torture, imprisonment without trial? That signing statement overrides the law. So long as there's a signing statement, that's a CYA card. That's how they could easily rule. No crime, see...the Supremes said so! 5-4, all the way!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. What if impeachment became a reality...

...to include removal from office. The Supremes couldn't, I don't believe, interfere with that. Of course, I didn't think they could interfere with Florida's vote count in 2000 either -- what do I know?

[MADem]

26. Sure they could. You give me an Article of Impeachment, I will give you a

Supreme Court ruling that says what Congress is charging either Monkey or VP with is magically, suddenly "LEGAL."

It's why Congress is moving ponderously--they want to get him on something that the Supremes can't mitigate, you know, the basic crimes, or better still, the coverups. That old "Lying Under Oath" one is tough to beat--it's why they use it so often.

See, they don't want BushCo running to the Supremes to avoid impeachment proceedings, and getting a ruling that says "Signing Statements Trump All Legislation." Then we really WOULD have a dictatorship.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

27. You may be right...

...but I just don't buy into the rhetoric (and I see posts of this sort all the time) that Congress is simply calculating and moving cautiously and carefully so as not to make a blunder or misstep, and when the time is right they're going to lower the boom on BushCo, we just need to be patient.

I think we've been way way more than patient with Congress, and I see no sign that they are going to make any serious challenges to this illegitimate, criminal regime.

This post from Sept, '05 still expresses my take on our situation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=394324&mesg_id=394340

[MADem]

28. Well, I agree with your point. They aren't rubbing their hands together, plotting, at all.

They aren't sneaking ahead, with a convoluted plan all worked out that is twelve moves ahead of the Monkey, springing their AH HA! trap like a James Bond nemesis, nothing like that. I don't agree with your "revolution" argument, but I do agree with you on that "no boom lowering" point.

What they are doing, though, is taking everything one step at a time, and THINKING about those downstream issues--if this, then what?--as they address each new piece of information that comes to the fore.

I am not a fan of impeachment without investigations. I'm just not. I'm also not a fan of impeachments without concrete proof or credible testimony of wrongdoing (even if we "know" that it has occurred). I know I am in the minority here, but I'd like to see investigations turn something up (and not "illegal war" because Congress approved that, and not "Lying to Congress" because he hasn't done that UNDER OATH, ever--yet). Congress needs a smoking gun. A memo, some emails, maybe testimony, proving conspiracies, coverups, and malicious intent to deceive. Anyone can make a mistake, but when you set out to subvert, that's a different story--but you have to prove it. Investigations may turn one of those smoking guns up.

Hell, look at John Dean's testimony during Nixon. That tumbled the house of cards, didn't it? We need testimony from someone who can put the CRIME in the WH. So far, though--his crew is tight, they don't talk much. They've got to find someone who will. They can't just make shit up and throw it in a bunch of Articles of Impeachment--that might get them a trial, but it won't get them a conviction. And if he's not convicted, the whole exercise goes down as a partisan, political exercise.

They need to find someone inside BushCo who is offended by the crimes and wants to tell the truth. Or someone who lies, gets caught, and flips to save their own ass.

[AndyTiedye]

9. What is an Answer of "No and Yes" Supposed to Mean?

They are NOT transitioning into a full dictatorship, but it is too late to stop them?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. It would mean that we are not in the final stage...

...perhaps an earlier one, but it is, however, too late to stop successful, steady progression to and through the final phase.

I actually didn't think about this until you raised the question -- did my off the cuff, BS answer pass?

[Mythsaje]

15. Not quite and No.

I seriously don't think they could pull it off. There might be those in their cabal who think so, but they also thought Iraq would be a cakewalk.

The American people will tolerate a lot. But anything overt would be a very, very bad idea. If nothing else, it would be bad for business.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. I hope you're right. nt.

[Mythsaje]

19. I'm about 80% sure...

There are forces here that would certainly strike back and there are barely enough cops to keep them under control as it is. Any National Guard response would be severely underpowered.

They think pacifying Iraq is hard? Wait until they try America on for size. Even if the middle class swallows it whole, there are segments of our society who are already armed, and would have NO reason to bend over for the fascists. And it would take one or two incidents to change how the community saw them.

Now if some ganger-bangers get into it with the police, the people support the police. Under martial law, I'm not sure that would be the case. Not with THIS asshole in charge.

And how many cops would quit rather than participate? Maybe not a large percentage, but some.

They'd be playing with fire.

[Thothmes]

20. Dictatorship

No, Bush will be out of office in January 2009. His administration will be looking for work elsewhere.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

21. Kick for larger sample. nt.

[leftofthedial]

22. yes,

and yes, without armed and violent insurrection

there no longer is an opposition party within the system, so no political solution is possible at this point

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

23. It looks to me like Congress is paralyzed with fear of what BushCo...

...is capable of if challenged, they don't want a showdown. This is the way the Mafia operates -- their success is dependent on people's fear, and without it their power melts.

[Locrian]

24. dictatorship...no fascism...yes

Bush will go, eventually. But the fascist corporate-ocracy will remain. It will take a depression, or global warming (ie a LOT OF PAIN) to turn that around.

[KAT119]

30. Have to arrest the * domestic enemies asap