We have a number of regular guests on the talk show. When they're not talking, many of them are writing. This is where you'll find their stuff.

The views expressed by our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of sane, moral and/or reasonably intelligent people. Jesus may or may not be pleased (or even care). And what's more, they certainly don't reflect the views of Steve Brown (I'm not even sure he knows any of this is going on).

Blog DescriptionThe Guest Room

Are the Hitler Parallels Too Close for Comfort?

John W. Whitehead June 12th, 2007

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." —George Santayana

On May 9, 2007, with little attention from the snoozing media, George W. Bush issued a "presidential directive" that allows him to assume control of the federal government following a "catastrophic emergency."

Although the directive doesn't specifically identify the types of emergencies that would qualify as "catastrophic," it is vague enough to encompass "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function." As Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive noted, it could include "another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California." In fact, the language is so broad that it could include almost anything the public is led to believe might have a major impact on the country. Not surprisingly, the president's order comes neatly packaged within the trappings of national security and safety.

This directive followed on the heels of a bill, which I have previously written about (www.rutherford.org), that was pushed through Congress and which gave the president the power to declare martial law and establish a dictatorship. Under these provisions, the president can now use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any "other condition."

In other words, the groundwork has been laid for the president of the United States to do away with our democracy, such as it is, and establish a dictatorship. The president, in effect, has become a power unto himself.

Having said that, I'm aware that I have opened myself up to accusations of paranoia and alarmist sentiment. However, if it is paranoid or alarmist to recognize the potential for abuse and urge Americans to guard against it, then so be it. It's time to sound the alarm.

If we continue down this road, there can be no surprise about what awaits us at the end. After all, it is a tale that has been told time and again throughout history. For example, over 70 years ago, the citizens of another democratic world power elected a leader who promised to protect them from all dangers. In return for this protection, and under the auspice of fighting terrorism, he was given absolute power.

This leader went to great lengths to make his rise to power appear both legal and necessary, masterfully manipulating much of the citizenry and their government leaders. Unnerved by threats of domestic terrorism and foreign invaders, the people had little idea that the domestic turmoil of the times–such as street rioting and the fear of Communism taking over the country–was staged by the leader in an effort to create fear and later capitalize on it. In the ensuing months, this charismatic leader ushered in a series of legislative measures that suspended civil liberties and habeas corpus rights and empowered him as a dictator.

On March 23, 1933, the nation's legislative body passed the Enabling Act, formally referred to as the "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation," which appeared benign and allowed the leader to pass laws by decree in times of emergency. What it succeeded in doing, however, was ensuring that the leader became a law unto himself. The leader's name was Adolf Hitler. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Yet history has a way of repeating itself. Hitler's rise to power should serve as a stark lesson to always be leery of granting any government leader sweeping powers. But we are clearly not heeding that lesson.

Americans are being lulled to sleep by the government's constant warning that terror and destruction lurk around the corner. Color-coded terrorism threat levels and reports of alleged terrorism plots are constantly paraded before us. Indeed, since 9/11, the American people have been kept in a state of constant fear and expectation of yet another terrorist attack or, more subtly, another Katrina. Thus, while the recent spate of directives giving the U.S. president broad powers to supposedly ensure America's safety and security from terrorism and natural disaster should serve as a warning, they have caused barely a ripple among the media or the masses.

President Bush has assured us that he will do whatever it takes to keep America safe, and Americans have blindly trusted him. How did he reward that trust? First, he claimed the authority to permanently imprison American citizens alleged to be so-called "enemy combatants." Then he asserted his right to order government intelligence agencies to not only spy on America's enemies but also on Americans. Now he has quietly and unobtrusively granted himself the power to take control of the government in the event of a vaguely defined national emergency.

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said that Americans should take alarm at the first experiment upon their liberties. But this latest "presidential directive" is not the first attack on our liberties, and I dare say it will not be the last. We'd better open our eyes soon, lest we wake up one morning and find that we live under a new regime. Only, this time, it will be one of our own making.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

Print This Post | Email This Post | Digg This!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 12th, 2007 at 10:23 am and is filed under , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

6 Responses to “Are the Hitler Parallels Too Close for Comfort?”

Joshua June 13th, 2007

That is truly horrifying. I would never have thought Bush capable of something so seemingly nefarious but I was wrong. Why in the world is this not being paid more attention to? Particulalry since the most media is in opposition to Bush. He's always been portrayed as a buffoon who can barely handle the demands of feeding himself let alone running the country but this would indicate otherwise. He clearly has more street smarts than we thought.

Mike June 14th, 2007

Hopefully those bills/laws/decrees expire when he leaves office and won't apply to the next president. Could you imagine the mess we would be in if Hillary or Obama got ahold of that kind of power. That is scary, it makes me feel that much more at peace that we have someone like George calling the shots, at least for now. I fear life in this country after the next election.

Mark June 18th, 2007

I'd actually trust Clinton or Obama with that type of power more than Bush. They would be too scared to make a "bad" decision, and I think Bush has already demonstrated that he's not at all scared to make a bad decision - in fact,at times he seems all to eager to make bad decisions.

Not that making a bad decision is so terrible. I'm just concerned that Bush doesn't seem willing to correct his mis-steps. It's not weakness to admit an error and change course, but it is very stupid to know that changes need to be made and yet to not make them.

Carl June 18th, 2007

As a historian teaching in college, I have seen this coming for some time. We clearly are at the "Julius Caesar moment" in our nation's history when a "good person" does a "bad thing" for the sake of the nation's "greater good."

Note, this is NOT a Republican or Democrat, a "hate Bush" or "hate Clinton" thing. This is an issue related to what we understand about our Republic. Note, the author above mentions "to do away with our democracy" thus revealing what he does NOT seem to know, that our founders INTENTIONALLY did not form us as a Democracy, but rather a Republic with democratic (small "d") principles.

The real tragedy is that we've been lulled to sleep with our success, having no more real challenges to us as a nation since the 1950s. Thus we've raised 3 generations who have had to pay no price, seen no real wanting, and have been babysat by an all-powerful government (Thank you, Mr. FDR). If any of the founders came around today, they would be horrified that we allowed an all-powerful Central Government to be able to tax our income, take away our property, threaten to take away our right to free speech and the many other issues.

The danger is not just that we have our own "Enabling Act" but that, as is always true in a Democracy, we can be so easily bought. As long as we still get our handouts as old people, as (supposedly poor people), as people in disasters and a ton of myriad other ways, we'll sit fat, dumb and happy.

As the Italians supposedly said after Mussolini assumed power (also legally through elections), "at least the trains run on time." All Bush or the next President has to do is promise to give all us "poor people" $25,000 annually or some other kick-back (could be free college, free health care, free cars, free gas, or cheaper versions of the same), most people will never look up from the Xbox or TVs to even notice.

keith November 24th, 2007

This is a bit on the paranoid side, no doubt. At the beginning of 2009, Bush will return to his ranch in Crawford and the next president (pray to God that's it's not Hillary) will take over.

We have courts and Congress as a checks and balances system. We're not likely to go quietly into the night of a dictatorship. After Nixon, the executive branch lost power for obvious reasons. Under Bush, as a result of 9/11, the executive branch has regained some power. These things ebb and flow.

Even with the extended powers, there are people with integrity in place who would use these carefully.

Hillary has been up to her neck in lies and scandals, which has been the case since Bill was gov in Arkansas. She regularly lies. While she's an "ends justify the means" sort of person, not even she could get away with dictatorship.

It was worse in WW II. We put Japanese Americans in camps. The govt read people's mail. After the war, things went back to normal.

Keep bringing people to Christ and helping people and don't lose sleep over this.

Perspective people. Keep an objective one.

Charles December 7th, 2007

Presidential directives have always been controversial and wild.

Anyone remember the nutty ones Bill signed back in the '90's?

In the end, I don't think they have much teeth, which is why there are so many of them and they are notoriously nutty.

Leave a Reply

Most Popular Stuff

Comments

MikeMcK

That would be Romans 7:19

Church ‘R’ Us (Part 2)

Read More

shelly

I was about to post what estuardo said. “What about...

Etcetera - 05.13.08 - Dis-Orientation

Read More

tommy

Didn’t Paul say something to the effect that the good...

Church ‘R’ Us (Part 2)

Read More

G-rock

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EXv i9bySjQQ

Etcetera - 05.14.08 - The Shack, Etc.

Read More

Ray

No, no relation. Michael has MUCH better hair.

Etcetera - 05.14.08 - The Shack, Etc.

Read More