Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - The 14 Characteristics of Fascism (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/108316-14-characteristics-fascism.html)

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

Quote:

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics.

Dr. Laurence Britt

There is more than one source you can find this article at, so if you differ in view from this link you will be able to find in other places or local libraries.

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/...ics-of-fascism

Some associates of mine are having problems with their employer; the government. I was trying to find article on corporate cronyism when I came across this article. I'm going to research classical definitions and or criteria of what it is to make sure that this gentleman didnt inventory what his views are on current America and bestow the title as common acceptance.

Personally I'm not calling the US Republic a fascist state, we have "We the People" to prevent that ever happening; right?

the only thing that is left out of the above is the importance of the "state of exception" or "state of emergency" as a legal device that is used to implement/extend the other areas.
in pre-nazi germany, the main legal theorist of the "state of exception" and its correlate in dictatorship was crl schmitt.
to my ongoing shock, the central figure behind many of the bush administration's legal arguments about executive power and its unlimited extendability is also carl schmitt.

in european versions of fascism, the center of support for it came from the petit bourgeois sectors, who were the prime demographic behind the populist blood-and-soil ideology central to the regime.
thise petit bourgeois support was critical in legitimating the suppression of the left (in italy and in germany)---in less fully implemented types of fascism, like poujadisme in france during the 50s (the precursor of the front national) it was once again the petit bourgeois that was the main audience for almost all the arguments outlined in the op.

now i am not going to say that bushworld is fascist.
it just kinda looks like it.

the main difference so far are the obstacles that the bushpeople's claims based on the "state or emergency" or "state of exception" have encountered, the limits that have shaped how far these have been able to go--they have not been and with any luck will not be adequately powerful to enable a total bypassing of the legistative branch (which schmitt called weak and indecisive--too committed to debate to make "decisions"--not endowed with the "power" of the "decisionmaker")--but it is fairly obvious that the bush-cheney folk would prefer these limits not exist....

we'll see what the near future brings.

in my more paranoid moments, i worry a bit about what could happen if the republicans loose control of congress in november--between the elections and january. who knows. maybe a war being launched against iran...

but i remain basically a bit pollyanna.

Is it the SAME Carl Schmitt, or just an alarming co-incidence of names? If it't the same one, he must be almost 100!

Damn. Thatm article is too big to be my signature.

This is a facinating artucle that has been in circulation for some time. I've read it quite a few times, and I use it as a guide. I consider it to be reliable (I've not seen anyone in here actually argue with any of the 14 points).

I think it is something everyone should bear in mind when monitoring our democracy.

Left wing accademic - check
Selling anti-Bush book - check
Writes a list in order to fit what the left sees as the current climate and create a buzz prior to publishing book - check

Taking the list at face value as an accademic work - Priceless.

Bonus Irony - Fascism is a left wing ideology, to dumb it down, its 'big government'.

Edit:having a hard time doing any additional research as the vast majority of the hits seem to be from left wing bloggers, often just cut and pasting the same article. Explains maybe why the book is no longer available on Amazon.

hasn't this list been posted on here before?

here are some biographical tidbits and a bit more on schmitt.

http://www.generation-online.org/p/pschmitt.htm

the more you read him, the more you see the influence on john yoo, gonzalez et al.

ustwo: if you "dumb down" the list as far as you manage to, you"dumb it down" to the level of meaninglessness--which does nto surprise me in general, but almost every time you do it in particular, it does. this time, you really manage to say almost nothing at all. like there is a contest that only you are playing in.

stevo: the general discussion has happened before, but not based on this particular list of features. i have listed some before, and they were close to those in the op. if i remember, they got about the same kind of responses from the conservative set that this one is getting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

stevo: the general discussion has happened before, but not based on this particular list of features. i have listed some before, and they were close to those in the op. if i remember, they got about the same kind of responses from the conservative set that this one is getting.

you aren't really suprised, are you?

Yay, it's 4 months since a thread declared Bush or Neo-Cons as Hitler and the SS!

Yall made your quota for this quarter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Yay, it's 4 months since a thread declared Bush or Neo-Cons as Hitler and the SS!

Yall made your quota for this quarter.

http://galizacig.org/imxact/2005/05/hitler_bush.jpg

Now if you all excuse me I need to be attending my neocon-bund meeting.

Thanks for the post, Sun Tzu. A friend and I started tracking the 14 characteristics a few years ago and then we found the site linked below. Specific articles are linked that are representative of each characteristic of facism, and you can judge for yourself how applicable you think they are. We also have a list of things that Bush wants but hasn't gotten yet.

14 Examples

You know, I'm working for a living here, I post when I get a break, so my mind isn't always 100% on the posts, so I am a bit embarassed that it took so long to figure out this point.

Based on that list, the US has always been and always will be a fascist government.

Name a time in US history where those 'points' weren't so, or at least claimed to be by some people. I double dog dare you.

you know, there is an interesting conversation to be had about this.

typically, anytime there is an interesting conversation to be had about something that makes the tfp-right uncomfortable, they seem to work to bury the thread beneath a pile of ill-considered quips, irrelevant material, wortheless asides--anything and everything except consider the question at hand and perhaps even take the time to think about the questions that are raised.

it happens every fucking time: steaming mounds of ill-considered, half baked rightwing idiocy seems to be all that the ustwo sqaud can contribute to any thread--whether they agree or not, it is always the same.

it is ALWAYS the same.
it is always the same here.

it is always the same.
no matter what the topic, it is always the same.

it is always the same.

agree or not agree, what you see from the ustwo squad never fucking changes.
no matter the situation, it is always the fucking same.

there is husky hair moving around my apartment.
i am going to go watch it.
it HAS to be more interesting than this.

Quote:

You know, I'm working for a living here, I post when I get a break, so my mind isn't always 100% on the posts, so I am a bit embarassed that it took so long to figure out this point.

That explains alot.

Quote:

Name a time in US history where those 'points' weren't so, or at least claimed to be by some people. I double dog dare you.

Ok. How about 1776.

Quote:

typically, anytime there is an interesting conversation to be had about something that makes the tfp-right uncomfortable, they seem to work to bury the thread beneath a pile of ill-considered quips, irrelevant material, wortheless asides--anything and everything except consider the question at hand and perhaps even take the time to think about the questions that are raised.

This does not make me uncomfterble, it does not hope to spark a debate. The question at hand is whether or not we are in a fascist state. The answer is no. Bush is going to leave office in 2008. There will be an election and the people will decide. There might be a few random instances of voter fraud, but those have occured in every election in history. Those involved will deal with the reprocussions.

You honestly think the media (#6) is under control of Bush? I'm sure you'll state Fox News, but to claim the other thousands of news stations are pro-Bush is ubsurd.

If Bush does not leave office in 2008 then you have a point.

Oh, and Ch'i it was MUCH more similar in 1776 than today. Sexism was obvious. Crime and punishment was handed out without trial to loyalists and natives, both served as scapegoats. Flags of defiance flew in all towns uncontrolled by the British. Mass media was controlled by the rebels, as any pro-British paper owner was tarred and feathered. Cronyism and corruption were everywhere, as only the rich male landowners could hold office. And the majority of these were Free Masons together. Elections were always ridden with false votes. And the rights of free traders (corporations) were sought so much that it was a large reason for the revolution in the first place. National security threats were obviously large because of war with the British and Indian tribes. The power of labor was non-existant. There you go, we were nazi before the nazis according to this.

Oh yeah, heil bush or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I consider myself to be neither left or right. The parties remind me to two football teams. It really doesnt matter who wins or loses; the NFL still get paid either way. Ironically I voted for Bush the first time, I didnt like where Gore was going with censorship among other things. I didnt vote for him a second time.

Whats with the agenda commentary? Again similiar to what Ive stated else where voicing an opinion could be an agenda, and agenda to sway one to anothers belief. Does that begin to kind turn into a form of paranoia. Its obvious here that man doesnt like Bush. Or is it that he does not like the ACTIONS that have taken place.

Surely this cant all boil down to because certain people wants tax brackets adjusted and are pro-choice they are seeing Bush as an evil tyrant bent on a self-fulling prophecy. I agree on alot of what the old conservative party was for. I agree on the civil liberty the democrats promote. They both fall short and have both had representatives do things I dont think the populus unified as a whole would agree with. People voice opinions through commentary. I guess every action could be seen as an agenda. Like Im getting up now with an agenda to go rock climbing.

Let me ask you are you a fan of Dennis Miller?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

Ok. How about 1776.

Seems to fit the criteria quite well. Oh, and there's that little slavery thing to boot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

hasn't this list been posted on here before?

I always do a title search before posting a new thread and it did not appear. It is possible it may have as a response. It which case I didnt know it woulndt be my intention to repeat this, Im starting to regret I posted this one.

I honestly posted it for 1. clarification on defining whether this man followed classical criteria or redifined the norm 2. civil commentary on how the points are correct or no.

Ustwo- I think I misread your reply. After reading it again you were simply answering what you thought his definition is in your own way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Yay, it's 4 months since a thread declared Bush or Neo-Cons as Hitler and the SS!

Yall made your quota for this quarter.

Remember when posts used to have content? Yeah, me neither.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

T Ok. How about 1776.

:eek:

Couldn't be a more wrong answer but thats been outlined already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Name a time in US history where those 'points' weren't so, or at least claimed to be by some people. I double dog dare you.

Just so we're clear, I think the article suggests that when you see many of those points becoming more prevelant, that might be time to pay better attention. I'm sure at least one of those points exists in some way or another anywhere in the world. It's when they combine that they creat camptian facism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So you mean this is the worst in terms of the magic, 14 points in US history?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu, Stevo failed to mention that the search function is broken so take his comment with the singular grain of salt that it deserves.

The author's criteria are generally considered to be an accurate definition of fascism. Applying these 14 characteristics, typical of the politics of Germany and Italy in the 30's and 40's, to the politics of the current Bush administration is a worthy topic of discussion. Of course, one must be capable of an open mind and have a desire to discuss controversial points of view.

I'm liking roachboy's designation of the "ustwo squad". Like preteen girls, they always appear in a pack and have little to offer to an adult conversation.

Quote:

I'm liking roachboy's designation of the "ustwo squad". Like preteen girls, they always appear in a pack and have little to offer to an adult conversation.

Like my argument how you can pick any time period and this list can make itself fit? Oh wait that was ignored.

It was *your* point. Support it yourself. Sheesh, how simple does it have to be for a decent discussion from y'all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I'm liking roachboy's designation of the "ustwo squad". Like preteen girls, they always appear in a pack and have little to offer to an adult conversation.

I ignore most of roachboys insults due to a desire to only read properly formatted posts but I do get them when quoted. Elphaba I wouldn't go down the insult route if I were you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

It was *your* point. Support it yourself. Sheesh, how simple does it have to be for a decent discussion from y'all?

We aren't calling the government fascist, it is not up to us to defend a silly claim by some academic which is easily refuted by anyone with even a slight education in US history. Its more up to the side who thinks it to prove it. So far, you aren't doing so well.

Its kinda like posting a truth out article and expecting us to accept its basic premise before being able to 'discuss' it. Sound familiar to you? You have dragged this thread into *snippiness* again, something you seem to excel at without adding much of your own.

Reread the OP, u2. Perhaps that will be of help in correcting your perception.

I am not much of one to stick my nose into politics for I know I would get into trouble. However, this thread is SO funny right now I think I shall go make a bag of popcorn, grab some fruit punch and enjoy a good laugh or 5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Sage

Welcome to Politics, sweet Lady. Try to restrain yourself, if at all possible. Snorting fruit punch through your nose is *very* unlady like. :)

I shall do my best. I am sure the small post I made above will bring myself under an interesting bit of name calling and finger pointing. After all that is what it seems these threads are all about here. Who can call the best names and insult the best without getting banned. Why cant people respect the opinions of others.

Everyone is right in their own mind.

Eventually the term will end and this will all have been a nightmare over for some or the reign of perfetion coming to end for others. Its all a matter of perception.

Quote:

Everyone is right in their own mind.

I want to see 14 references to prove this statement. Are you sure you didn't mean to say "everyone in not in their right mind?"

Pass the popcorn, please. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So you mean this is the worst in terms of the magic, 14 points in US history?

I'm afraid I honestly don't know what you're asking. These 14 points are not magic, but are obviously based mostly on the emergence of facism in Europe. Oh, and it's not a Godwin if you're actually talking about Nazis. I don't know which of the 14 is worst, and if I did make a determination it would only be my opinion. Which is your favorite?

Quote:

Everyone is right in their own mind.

My mind is leftist most of the time .:)

I am new here, but as to the name calling, I would suggest civility begets civility.

Welcome to TFP dc. Not everyone calls names. For the most part we are a peace loving bunch of people from various backgrounds who like to have fun. Of course there are always those...... that put the FUN in dysfunctional.:lol:

I see many valid points in the above list of 14 in the way the world today is. It makes me sad that tis come to this in places. On the plus side though, it helps us know what we need to start doing to prevent such thigns in the future. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I am new here, but as to the name calling, I would suggest civility begets civility.

The force is strong with this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My mind is leftist most of the time .:)

I am new here, but as to the name calling, I would suggest civility begets civility.

Then you are DEFINITELY new here, at least to Politics :D

As for that list, I don't have time right now but looking through it I think I could EASILY make it fit to several parts of American history.

Just have to remember to do it tomorrow :)

I already did dj, dont bother you'll just be ignored too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i
T Ok. How about 1776.

:eek:

Couldn't be a more wrong answer but thats been outlined already.

Wow what a misquote! I said "Ok. How about 1776", not "T Ok. How about 1776." That could cause some serious trouble. :thumbsup:

This is why I don't post in politics anymore.... or very rarely do I post.

I see nothing but attacks. I see no exchange of ideas, no debate, nothing. I see the right trying to get in shots at the left and the left bringing up a point to discuss maybe have the right show where it is wrong.... and yet the right do their best to play TFP Limbaughs and attack and play cutesy little games and ignore what has been put in front of them....

Again, I ask the right, why post if you are not going to debate or bring anything of substance to the table? Is it because you must post the same attacks in every post so that people will tune out anything the left may have right? If you cannot truly debate a point what does that say about your stance, your ideology and your partisan views?

As for the OP..... there is some obvious truths, moreso now than at any other time in our history..... and if you want to debate that.... by all means bring your facts and I'll bring mine. I love history, I have studied it all my life and I think I can pretty much show that as far as the OP and Fascism goes, there was never a period in our history where all 14, where even 10 of those 14 points are close.....

So either put up a debate, show me what you have or move on and stop playing your juvenile games..... for "professionals" with so many degrees, education or inner experience you truly show nothing but ignorance as you play these games.

Kinda like the whole national thing..... where those lefties seem to be controlling the races and elections.

Actually a few select members get webcams and an open conference program and stream a video debate they might have a nightly audience.

I think the only reason Hannity and Combes has worked out is they dont directly go at one another like Crossfire.

We did the "14 Characteristics" here in Feb, 2005:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=83183

....and again in may, 2005....in my post here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=34
....well into this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...24#post1790824

....it seems to me that we are more deeply into corporatism, than we were
at the turn of the century, and that history shows that the right is pretty repressive....and violently so.....against the left, but it probably wasn't much fun being a german or a soviet citizen who was critical of the government, in say.....1942?

OK folks. Can we have a return to civility?

The snide comments from both sides stop now.

You don't like someone's position, argue against it in a rational way. If you don't care to do that, USE THE FREAKING BACK BUTTON.

Anything less than civility will be dealt with...

ok then.

just to tie off one or two details as this thread twitches toward death....

1. the approach to law within the bush administration--it's preference for the state of emergency, its use of executive mechanisms to get around legislative actions, the establishment of a parallel extra-legal prison system based on assumptions rooted in the state of exception or emergency etc.---all of that is directly rooted in schmitt and amounts to a legal justification for dictatorship.

the present political situation is such that this legal theory is simply a position outlined by the executive branch that has not been shifted to anything more than a position outlined by the executive branch.

it is a dangerous legal philosophy for a branch within a democratic goverment to adopt because--if you actually read schmitt, that is if you actually know anything about the philosophy--which it would be good for discussion to be able to assume--it is probably the most anti-democratic position to be outlined in the last 100 years.

IF another attack or another war, say, were to happen in a context where the executive branch is using such a position to rationalize its positions, the consequences would be very bad indeed.

BUT--it has not happened, and with any good fortune, the bush administration will slide into the ash-heap of history without that happening.

SO--what the argument about legal theory amounts to is an argument about the potential for a type of fascism.

it is a real one, but it is potential.

the features outlined in the op--and apparently in other ops (thanks host) are in the main more general---they are features of petit bourgeois radical nationalism--which are recurrent aspects of extreme right ideology in the united states that have been around, in various forms, for some time.

the united states is a kind of jurassic park of outmoded nationalist-based ideology.

but given the sterling success of the bush administration, one would expect that one effect of the past 6 years will be the casting of this far-right radical nationalism back into the margins of political discourse.

2. seaver: had this thread not deteriorated into yet another example of the problems for having a civil debate concerned with questions of substance that are posed for tfp as a microcommunity by the particular folk who speak in the name of the right, i would have responded to your post above (somewhere) that the united states is not a fascist state

but that the ideology of the bush administration can be matched point for point with such an ideology. and their legal philosophy is a particular problem within that.

but so far, the system of checks has worked. it may have been working because the rightwing legislature is mostly concerned with protecting its turf as over against the executive rather than because there is a principled objection to the positions elaborated by the bush administration--but that does not matter functionally--it has worked so far.

3. it is in a general way a shame that the antiwar movement has trafficked in accusations about fascism in the unted states that is without any nuance, and so is little more than inflammatory nonsense.
the word has been ground to dust repeated before that, however.

but that crude use of the category does not change anything about the ideology articulated by the administration. it is a dangerous ideology.

i am surprised to see american conservatives defending an administration the legal philosophy of which amounts to an argument for dictatorship.
i would imagine that such arguments would contradict the libertarian aspects of conservative politics.
in fact, i would expect that most conservatives would find the idea of a far right dictatorship completely repellent and would oppose it once one was in place (were that to happen)
explicitly authoritarian politics seems a minority position, even in debates on tfp.

on the other hand, you can see from looking across threads at conservative arguments here that they can be tricked into endorsing such positions by the hysteria generated via the "war on terror"---you see it in the defenses mounted of the administration's extra-legal prison system, in the defenses mounted to the administration's use of torture---all of these are rooted in the logic of the state of emergency or state of exception--if you buy that, then anything goes.

but that is not the whole of conservative politial doctrine--it even runs counter to much of it.

so i am surprised to see the same folk arguing in a generall democratic direction in one type of thread, and in the opposite direction in other types of threads.

it make me wonder if the loyalty to the bush administration because they are a conservative administration blinds folk on the right to aspects of what that administration stands for.

you would think internal critiques would be possible, wouldn't you?

I agree with your assesment Roachboy... the checks seem to be working. It is disturbing, as you point out, how appealing the current administration's position is to many. That the current admin pulls many of the same levers as more traditionally fascist state would in order to get done, what they want to do within their short mandate of four to eight years.

Just to be clear for those reading at home, the US is not currently a fascist state. But the current admin, it is being argued, has dipped into the the "fascist toolbox". I suppose it could be argued that many administrations in the past have done this as well. It's just that this current admin has done it so well (i.e. to great effect) and so consistently.

Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The force is strong with this one.

Learn much, I could, from him. :thumbsup:

Fascismo Americano? It's hard to say... things have changed since the forties, which is why it's erroneous to compare current American ideologies to those of German Nazis and Italian fascists.

I don't think fascism as we know it historically is the issue; I think the issue is a crisis of morality. After all, didn't fascism become rampant where nations lost their way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Now was this the 1940's before or after the Japanese internment camps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now was this the 1940's before or after the Japanese internment camps?

The Japanese internment began in 1942, and fascism took a bit of a nosedive in 1945, as did the internment camps. So I guess that means the forties just before and during the time of the camps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The Japanese internment began in 1942, and fascism took a bit of a nosedive in 1945, as did the internment camps. So I guess that means the forties just before and during the time of the camps.

So this would be then before McCarthyism and J. Hoover?

My point is the US is no more oppressive or fascist now than before, if anything we are far less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So this would be then before McCarthyism and J. Hoover?

My point is the US is no more oppressive or fascist now than before, if anything we are far less.

I agree with you. My point is that we shouldn't compare Nazism and Italian fascism to U.S. ideologies... the conditions from which fascism sprang no longer exist. These right-wing ideologies have no influence in America, especially if we consider them unchanged ideas that have somehow survived into the 20th century; otherwise, all the social upheaval that happened in the sixties wouldn't have been possible.

If fascism (as it was known) is the case in the U.S., its citizens would have much greater difficulty ridiculing or criticizing the nation's leaders.

Living in Singapore, it very much fit these 14 points, but they hid behind a democratic face. The Marcos regime in the Philippines was also very much like that as well.

They fit those 14 points too but they carried it to the most extreme, and continued to do so for over a generation.

Living here in the US is NOTHING like living in those countries...our government changes over time over and over again. You too can participate in the process besides just voting.

Fascism in the USA

Old American Century Site - http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

A 14 minute film is here - http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=fascism%2BUSA

The site is made as a reply to the "New American Century" site, it shows that "it's not fascism when we do it"
From the site :

Quote:

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

All these are explained and documented on the site. We have a picture of the extreme right wing - that thing that we do not know if we should fear or not

Wikipedia

Quote:

Fascism (IPA: [ˈfæː.ʃɪ.zm̩]) is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.[1] Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism[2], anti-liberalism, and anti-communism. For further elaboration, please refer to fascism and ideology.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=fascism%2BUSA - a 14 min movie "America from freedom to fascism"

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Quote:

"Less access than Kazakhstan. Fewer fail-safes than Venezuela. Not as simple Republic of Georgia. The 2004 Elections according to international observers.
As for electronic voting, Gould said he preferred Venezuela's system over the calculator-sized touchpads in Miami.

"Each electronic vote in Venezuela also produces a ticket that voters then drop into a ballot box," Gould said. "Unlike fully electronic systems, this gives a backup that can be used to counter claims of massive fraud."

As you can see international observers like the Venezuela voting system more

I do believe we've already had this before.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...09&q=Olbermann
Habeas Corpus is gone. This is not some "conspiracy theory", it's the law.

I mean on this forum your links have already been started as threads. Please do a search.

Merged with the Original Thread on this topic.

Quote:

"Do you believe as Commander in Chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asks Bush in the short clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night.

"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said.

"Now I fully understand they will," Bush continued, "they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward."

What is that thing called "Congress" ?

Quote:

The United States Congress
The United States Congress is the legislature of the United States federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives has 435 voting members (plus non-voting delegates from American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands), each representing a congressional district and serving a two-year term. Puerto Rico sends a non-voting resident commissioner who serves a four-year term. The Northern Mariana Islands are not represented. House seats are apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Each state has two Senators, regardless of population. There are 100 senators, serving staggered six-year terms. Every two years, approximately 1/3 of the Senate is elected. Both Senators and Representatives are chosen through direct election.
The United States Constitution vests all legislative powers of the federal government in the Congress. The powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. Through Acts of Congress, Congress may regulate interstate and foreign commerce, levy taxes, organize the federal courts, maintain the military, declare war, and exercise certain other "necessary and proper" powers.
The House and Senate are coequal houses. However, there are some special powers granted to one chamber only. The Senate's advice and consent is required to confirm presidential nominations to high-level executive and judicial positions, and for the ratification of treaties. Bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, as well as any impeachment proceedings.
Congress meets in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. The term, "Congress" may also refer to a particular meeting of the Congress, reckoned according to the terms of Representatives. The current 110th United States Congress first convened on January 4, 2007.

History of the United States Congress
The Congress of the United States has its roots from the First Continental Congress, a meeting of representatives of twelve of Great Britain's eighteen North American colonies, in the autumn of 1774. On 4 July 1776, the Second Continental Congress declared thirteen former colonies independent states, referring to them as the "United States of America." Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body in which each state was equally represented, and in which each state had a veto over most action. The ineffectiveness of the federal government under the Articles led Congress to summon the Convention of 1787. Originally intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, it ended up writing a completely new constitution.
James Madison called for a bicameral Congress: the lower house elected directly by the people, and the upper house elected by the lower house. The smaller states, however, favored a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states. Eventually, a compromise was reached; the House of Representatives to provide representation proportional by population, whereas the Senate would provide equal representation by states. In order to preserve further the authority of the states, it was provided that state legislatures, rather than the people, would elect senators.
The post Civil War Gilded Age was marked by Republican dominance of Congress. Senate elections were tainted by corruption, bribery and gridlock preventing the election of a senator. These issues were addressed by the Seventeenth Amendment (ratified in 1913), which provided for the direct election of senators.
The early twentieth century witnessed the rise of party leadership in both houses of Congress. In the House of Representatives, the office of Speaker became extremely powerful. Leaders in the Senate were somewhat less powerful; individual senators still retained much of their influence. In particular, committee chairmen remained particularly strong in both houses until the reforms of the 1970s.
During the long administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. Both the Republicans and the Democrats were in control at various points during the next decade. However, after winning the elections of 1954, the Democratic Party was the majority party in both houses of Congress for most of the next forty years. The Republicans returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994. The Republicans controlled both houses until 2006 except from 2001 to 2003 when the Democrats held the Senate. In 2006, the Democratic Party regained control of the House of Representatives, and the results of the Senate elections yielded a Senate makeup of 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 independents. It is noted that in the 110th Congress, the Democratic voting bloc will have a 51-49 Senate majority because the two Senators who ran and were elected as Independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, have pledged to align themselves with the Democratic Party.

Powers
Military pallbearers carry the casket of former President Gerald R. Ford up the East Steps of the Capitol Building, December 30, 2006
Section 8 of Article One of the United States Constitution sets forth the powers of Congress. The most important powers are the powers to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, coin money, establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, raise and maintain the armed forces, declare war, and "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers".
There are additional powers other parts of the Constitution grant. For instance, Congress has the power to admit new states to the Union (Article Four). Other powers have been granted, or confirmed, by constitutional amendments.
Congress has the power to break deadlocks in the electoral college. If no presidential candidate achieves an electoral majority, the House may elect the President from the three candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Similarly, if no vice presidential candidate achieves an electoral majority, the Senate may elect the Vice President from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Several of the members of the Constitutional Convention expected that, while George Washington would be overwhelmingly elected as first President under the Constitution, selection by the House would be the normal method after him.
The "necessary-and-proper" clause of the Constitution permits Congress to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its other powers and the rest of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted the necessary-and-proper clause broadly, which has permitted the Congress wide authority.
One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This power is usually delegated to committees—standing committees, special committees, select committees, or joint committees composed of members of both houses. Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public; important hearings are widely reported in the mass media.
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution places certain limits of congressional authority. For instance, Congress may not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (except in extreme cases of rebellion or invasion), pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, or grant titles of nobility. Several other restrictions are specified by constitutional amendments, especially the Bill of Rights. The last clause of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Checks and balances
The constitution provides certain checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; it depends largely on the leadership and the political influence of the President. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One. Under the first half-dozen Presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the President and Congress, in part because early Presidents largely restricted their vetoes to claims of unconstitutionality.
Andrew Jackson (1829–37) dominated his Congresses; his successors were weaker men (excluding Abraham Lincoln (1861–65), and perhaps James K. Polk (1845–49) and Martin van Buren (1837–41)). Senators ruled, including Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Thomas Hart Benton, Stephen Douglas, and Thaddeus Stevens. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson completed this trend, making the presidency much less powerful than Congress. During the late nineteenth century, President Grover Cleveland aggressively attempted to restore the executive branch's power, vetoing over four hundred bills during his first term. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), Richard Nixon (1969–74), Ronald Reagan (1981–89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency). In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century.
The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Senate is constitutionally empowered to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial). Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated he would eventually be removed from office.
The Constitution entrusts certain powers to the Senate alone. The President may only appoint Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The Senate confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the appointment of federal officials or the ratification of treaties.
In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of Federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding, however, that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review; however, the notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78.

Legislative procedure
The House Financial Services committee meets. Committee members sit in the tiers of raised chairs, while those testifying and audience members sit below.

Term
Under the Twentieth Amendment, congressional terms begin at noon on January 3 of every odd-numbered year. It is conventional to refer to each Congress by the ordinal number of its term. Thus, the current Congress (whose term lasts from 2007 to 2009) is known as the "110th Congress"; the previous Congress (whose term lasted from 2005 to 2007) was the "109th Congress," and so forth. Each Congress has a term of two years.
At the beginning of each new term, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate (those who were chosen in the election the previous November) are sworn in. The oath taken is provided by statute: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." The House of Representatives also elects a Speaker to preside over debates. The President pro tempore of the Senate, by contrast, holds office continuously; normally, a new President pro tempore is only elected if the previous one retires, or if there is a change in the majority party.
A term of Congress is divided into two "sessions," one for each year; Congress has occasionally also been called into an extra, (or special) session. (The Constitution requires Congress to meet at least once each year.) A new session commences on January 3 (or another date, if Congress so chooses) each year. Before the Twentieth Amendment, Congress met from the first Monday in December to April or May in the first session of their term (the "long session"); and from December to March 4 in the second "short session". (The new Congress would then meet for some days, for the inauguration, swearing in new members, and organization.)
The Constitution forbids either house from meeting any place outside the Capitol, or from adjourning for more than three days, without the consent of the other house. The provision was intended to prevent one house from thwarting legislative business simply by refusing to meet. To avoid obtaining consent during long recesses, the House or Senate may sometimes hold pro forma meetings, sometimes only minutes long, every three days. The consent of both bodies is required for Congress's final adjournment, or adjournment sine die, at the end of each congressional session. If the two houses cannot agree on a date, the Constitution permits the President to settle the dispute.

Joint session of the U.S. Congress
Joint Sessions of the United States Congress occur on special occasions that require a concurrent resolution from both House and Senate. These sessions include the counting of electoral votes following a Presidential election and the President's State of the Union address. Other meetings of both House and Senate are called Joint Meetings of Congress, held after unanimous consent agreements to recess and meet. Meetings of Congress for Presidential Inaugurations may also be Joint Sessions, if both House and Senate are in session at the time, otherwise they are formal joint gatherings.
At some time during the first two months of each session, the President customarily delivers the State of the Union Address, a speech in which he assesses the situation of the country and outlines his legislative proposals for the congressional session. The speech is modeled on the Speech from the Throne given by the British monarch, and is mandated by the Constitution of the United States--though it is not necessarily required to be delivered each year or in the customary manner. Thomas Jefferson discontinued the original practice of delivering the speech in person before both houses of Congress, deeming it too monarchical. Instead, Jefferson and his successors sent a written message to Congress each year. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson reestablished the practice of personally attending to deliver the speech; few Presidents have deviated from this custom since.
Joint Sessions and Joint Meetings are traditionally presided over by the Speaker of the House. except for the joint session to count electoral votes for President, when the Constitution requires the President of the Senate to preside.

Bills and resolutions
A proposal may be introduced in Congress as a bill, a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution, or a simple resolution. Most legislative proposals are introduced as bills, but some are introduced as joint resolutions. There is little practical difference between the two, except that joint resolutions may include preambles but bills may not. Joint resolutions are the normal method used to propose a constitutional amendment or to declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law. Instead, they serve to express the opinion of Congress, or to regulate procedure.
Members of Congress often introduce legislation at the behest of lobbyists. Lobbyists advocate the passage (or rejection) of bills affecting the interest of a particular group (such as a corporation or a labor union). In many cases, the lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Congressional lobbyists are legally required to be registered in a central database, and are employed by political organizations, corporations, state governments, foreign governments, and numerous other groups. In 2005, there are almost 35,000 registered Congressional lobbyists, representing a doubling since 2000. Some of the most prominent lobbyists are ex-members of Congress, others are family members of sitting members. As an example, Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and Roy Blunt all have immediate family members who are (or were) lobbyists.
Bills (and other proposals) may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Although it cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them.
Each bill goes through several stages in each house. The first stage involves consideration by a committee. Most legislation is considered by standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a particular subject matter, such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. In some cases, bills may be sent to select committees, which tend to have more narrow jurisdictions than standing committees. Each standing and select committee is led by a chair (who belongs to the majority party) and a ranking member (who belongs to the minority party). Committees are permitted to hold hearings and collect evidence when considering bills. They may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After considering and debating a measure, the committee votes on whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house.
A decision not to report a bill amounts to a rejection of the proposal. Both houses provide for procedures under which the committee can be bypassed or overruled, but they are rarely used. If reported by the committee, the bill reaches the floor of the full house. The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House of Representatives and the Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.
Central party discipline is not as strong in Congress as it is in parliamentary systems, and in the Senate it is weaker than in the House. However, the leadership does have certain powers to sway reluctant legislators to vote with the party. Party leaders derive most of their powers from the ability to fundraise, to control the flow of legislation, and to assign desirable positions; a rebel Congressman may be threatened with a cutoff of funds for his/her campaign, a reduction of pork for his/her district, thwarting of his/her pet legislation, and/or denial of a future committee chairmanship.
The party leadership may use the "catch and release" strategy in order to ensure the passage of important legislation with the support of reluctant members. The leaders "catch" a member, pressuring him or her to vote in favor of the legislation even if it is unpopular in the member's constituency. Then, if the bill has sufficient support to pass anyway, the member may be "released," that is, permitted to vote as he or she pleases. Hence, members may avoid alienating influential special interest groups, while remaining loyal to the party.
Once a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other, which may pass, reject, or amend it. In order for the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill. If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes both senators and representatives. In many cases, conference committees have introduced substantial changes to bills and added unrequested spending, significantly departing from both the House and Senate versions. President Ronald Reagan once quipped, "If an orange and an apple went into conference consultations, it might come out a pear." If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes; otherwise, it fails.
After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his or her objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the President may choose to take no action, neither signing nor vetoing the bill. In such a case, the Constitution states that the bill automatically becomes law after ten days (excluding Sundays). However, if Congress adjourns (ends a legislative session) during the ten day period, then the bill does not become law. Thus, the President may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.
Every Act of Congress or joint resolution begins with an enacting formula or resolving formula stipulated by law. These are:
Act of Congress: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
Joint resolution: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."

Quorum and voting
The Constitution specifies that a majority of members constitutes a quorum to do business in each house. The rules of each house provide that a quorum is assumed to be present unless a quorum call demonstrates the contrary. Representatives and senators rarely force the presence of a quorum by demanding quorum calls; thus, in most cases, debates continue even if a majority is not present.
Both houses use voice voting to decide most matters; members shout out "aye" or "no," and the presiding officer announces the result. The Constitution, however, requires a recorded vote on the demand of one-fifth of the members present. If the result of the voice vote is unclear, or if the matter is controversial, a recorded vote usually ensues. The Senate uses roll call votes; a clerk calls out the names of all the senators, each senator stating "aye" or "no" when his or her name is announced. The House reserves roll call votes for the most formal matters; normally, members vote by electronic device. In the case of a tie, the motion in question fails. In the Senate, the Vice President may (if present) cast the tiebreaking vote.

Privileges
Under the Constitution, members of both houses enjoy the privilege of being free from arrest in all cases, except for treason, felony, and breach of the peace. This immunity applies to members "during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." The term "arrest" has been interpreted broadly, and includes any detention or delay in the course of law enforcement, including court summons and subpoenas. The rules of the House very strictly guard this privilege; a member may not waive the privilege on his or her own, but must seek the permission of the whole house to do so. Senate rules, on the other hand, are less strict, and permit individual senators to waive the privilege as they see fit.
The Constitution also guarantees absolute freedom of debate in both houses, providing, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Hence, a member of Congress may not be sued for slander because of remarks made in either house. However, each house has its own rules restricting offensive speeches, and may punish members who transgress them.
Obstructing the work of Congress is a crime under federal law, and is known as contempt of Congress. Each house of Congress has the power to cite individuals for contempt, but may not impose any punishment. Instead, after a house issues a contempt citation, the judicial system pursues the matter like a normal criminal case. If convicted in court, an individual found guilty of contempt of Congress may be imprisoned for up to one year.
Aside from benefits directly facilitating their legislative work, members enjoy a number of other perks. As of 2005 rank and file Congressmen received a salary of $158,100. Congressional leaders are paid more. Members are granted several free Capitol parking spaces and are exempt from parking tickets through the use of special license plates. Members of Congress enjoy such facilities as private gymnasiums, low cost barbers, and subsidized dining areas (although this may not be the case in the 110th Congress [1]). They are also able to substitute their signature for postage allowing them to send large quantities of mail at a reduced cost (franking).
Another privilege is the use of the Library of Congress. The Library's primary mission is to serve the Congress and its staff. To do this, the Congressional Research Service provides detailed, up-to-date and non-partisan research for Senators, Representatives, and their staff to help them carry out their functions as national servants.

Sources: Baker, Ross K. (2000). House and Senate, 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton. (Procedural, historical, and other information about both houses)

Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen. The Almanac of American Politics, 2006 (2005), elaborate detail on every district and member; 1920 pages

Berg-Andersson, Richard E. (2001). Explanation of the types of Sessions of Congress (Term of Congress)

Berman, Daniel M. (1964). In Congress Assembled: The Legislative Process in the National Government. London: The Macmillan Company. (Legislative procedure)

Davidson, Roger H., and Walter J. Oleszek. (1998). Congress and Its Members, 6th ed. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)

Dennis Hastert, Tom Daschle, and David Silverberg. Congress for Dummies (2002)

Herrick, Rebekah. (2001). "Gender effects on job satisfaction in the House of Representatives." Women and Politics, 23 (4), 85–98.

Hunt, Richard. (1998). "Using the Records of Congress in the Classroom," OAH Magazine of History, 12 (Summer): 34–37.

Ann-Marie Imbornoni|Imbornoni, Ann-Marie, David Johnson, and Elissa Haney. (2005). "Famous Firsts by American Women."

Lee, Frances and Bruce Oppenheimer. (1999). Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (Equal representation in the Senate)
Rimmerman, Craig A. (1990). "Teaching Legislative Politics and Policy

Making." Political Science Teacher, 3 (Winter): 16–18.

Ritchie, Donald A. (1997). "What Makes a Successful Congressional Investigation." OAH Magazine of History, 11 (Spring): 6–8. (Congressional investigations and committee hearings)

Story, Joseph. (1891). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States. (2 vols). Boston: Brown & Little. (History, constitution, and general legislative procedure)

David R. Tarr and Ann O'Connor. Congress A to Z (CQ Congressional Quarterly) (4th 2003) 605pp

Wilson, Woodrow. (1885). Congressional Government. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Some information in this article has been provided by the Senate Historical Office.

Thank's for the description. Bush also said :

Quote:

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Here is a video about who and how controls the USA :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30277175242198

In the end it is the way people think (or not think) and their greed that leads to such results. The leaders are just a reflection of ourselves

One man got arrested for asking a question to Giuliani's press secreatary :
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...ni_orders.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ndictments.htm

Quote:

Since when do campaign operatives have the power to order state police to arrest someone on false charges or arbitrate who has the right to conduct journalism, a right guarded by the Constitution?

A warning to the press-- if candidates or police don't like your questions, you could be arrested for trespassing and even espionage in the new Orwellian America.

Quote:

Rudkowski was assaulted and questioned on who he was working for despite the fact that he hadn't even asked a question and was standing separately from Lepacek.

Lepacek was told that other eyewitnesses saw police stamp on one of the cameras as it lay on the floor.

Another eyewitness said that the entire arrest was clearly being directed by Secret Service, who were ordering the police to threaten anyone who asked questions about the incident with arrest.

Lepacek was later released on $400 bail but faces charges of criminal trespassing even though he had obtained a CNN press pass well in advance and the debate was a public event. State police have refused to hand back electronic equipment that they seized from the group.

CNN staff attempted to dissuade police from arresting Lepacek as he was led out into the parking lot but were ignored.

Then he was accused of spying because he was transmitting live on the internet from his camera

nothing to see here...move along, subject.

Who protects the Constitution is a terrorist these days, according to the FBI manual :

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/20...ial_terrorist/

Quote:

The Phoenix FBI training manual tells would-be federales what to look for. Like:

Defenders of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the UN
Groups of individuals engaging in para-military training
Those who make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution
Those who attempt to police the police
Lone individuals
Rebels

pai mei, that's the scariest thing I've read in a long time. Thank you for posting it. If I had para-miliary training, I'd be on that list. I love my Constitution, and those who care to stomp on it are not Americans or patriots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Here too... substitute military training for para-military and I fit the bill. Or does watching Red Dawn count as a para-military training course?

Regardless, general profiling is next to worthless because it has to be so broad, though it continues to be printed in all levels of law enforcement, whether to identify terrorists, gang members, sexual predators, or drivers without liability insurance. It wasn't long ago I was reading a similar list to identify dangerous individuals at the airport: if they walk too fast, walk too slow, walk too uptight, walk too casual, hide in crowds, walk alone, carry baggage, carry no baggage...and so on.

There are real threats out there and real criminals that have to be identified and stopped by the FBI and other agencies. In the case of paramilitaries, differentiating between those groups that are actually a danger, and those that are not is very difficult. I wouldn't be all that worried about the language of a training manual, especially without all the context of the other training provided which I hope would give an agent some more nuanced understanding of things. The proof is in the actions undertaken; and they should be accountable for their actions to the public they serve.

Josh