jump to navigation

Keys to Dictatorship in the Soviet Regions of America July 26, 2010

Posted by scmla in Original Article.
trackback

Keys to Dictatorship in the Soviet Regions of America
SoCal Martial Law Alerts
July 24, 2010

Based on historical precedent, we contend that the major keys to soviet-style dictatorship are currently in place here in America.

In order for a dictator to rule, he/she must have, at minimum, the following three geographical and political elements in place:

  • One, or more, easily-manageable geographical regions as determined by the dictator;
  • Usurpation of the existing governmental structures by soviet-style council (or committee) members who are appointed (not elected) by the dictator and who are accountable only to him/her;
  • One, or more, military units which are accountable only to the unelected council which, in turn, is accountable only to the dictator.

Unfortunately, all the above-listed elements for a dictator to be successfully installed here in America are now in place:

  • America has been divided into ten regions as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — a Cabinet-level position accountable only to the President;
  • On January 11, 2010, President Obama established a Council of (ten) Governors (which will presumably rule over ten regions) when he signed Executive Order Number 13528;
  • On July 12, 2010, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced that ten National Guard Homeland Response Force units would be assigned to the ten FEMA regions currently in place.

Examples from History

Historically, there has been a long history of dictators and/or would-be dictators, using appointment power coupled with military force to either bring about, or strengthen, their dictatorships.

During the final years of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar used the power of the First Triumvirate (i.e. three heads of state, of which Caesar was one) to first reform the political landscape into further centralization of power. Soon after the death of Crassus (one member of the Triumvirate), Caesar then turned on Pompey. Aided by his army, Caesar crossed the Rubicon and entered Rome unopposed. Caesar further established his dictatorship by placing people of his own party into the Roman Senate. By 42 B.C., Caesar had passed laws which allowed him to appoint all magistrates, thus transforming the people’s political representatives into Caesar’s representatives. Although Caesar was assassinated soon after, he had laid the groundwork that would eventually lead to the Roman Emperorship (i.e. dictatorship).

In England, Queen Elizabeth I sent a small contingent of troops off to aid councils of Protestant nobles in Scotland. Elizabeth’s fear was that her cousin, Mary (also known as Mary, Queen of Scots and former Queen of France) would bring French troops and invade England through Scotland. By the time Mary arrived in Scotland in 1561, her political network had been weakened to the point that she was never able to challenge Elizabeth for the British throne.

In Russia, the Bolshevik Party was founded by Lenin who sought to include only “professional revolutionaries” from the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. Only those Party members who were active and willing to fund the revolution were allowed into the Bolshevik Party, thus creating a recruiting ground for the revolutionaries Lenin desired. From this Party base, Lenin would eventually pick his first council (or soviet) which organized the October Revolution and involved armed insurrection. The Bolshevik Party system allowed Lenin to have a hand-picked group (the central committee) ready to replace the existing political structure (i.e. very similar to our current Council of Governors). The armed Party members gave Lenin the teeth to successfully pull off the 1917 coup, which culminated in the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922. To sum, Lenin needed both the central committee and a military force in order to gain total control.

In more recent times, Hawaii was ruled by the United States Army during WWII. After the Pearl Harbor attacks, Governor Joseph Poindexter, in essence, handed the Territory of Hawaii over to the Army, which promptly declared martial law. Given Hawaii’s strategic position, the Army had already created a military command there, so, when martial law was declared, the Army easily transitioned into total control of Hawaii for nearly 3 years. During that time, Hawaii was ruled by a military governor, the civilian courts were not allowed to function and civilians were subject to military tribunal. Basically, Hawaii’s civilian government was rendered ceremonial. Later in Duncan v. Kahanamoku and White v. Steer*, the Supreme Court upheld the military convictions (of American citizens in military tribunals) that had been handed down in a lower court and even justified the Army’s extended use of martial law powers (despite the civil-rights violations of American citizens).

An interesting footnote regarding Hawaii’s martial-law situation is the fact that, according to Harry and Jane Scheiber*, “the Army’s readiness to take over every detail of government in Hawaii only hours after the Pearl Harbor attack was in startling contrast to its lack of military preparedness to deal with the onslaught by Japan’s air fleet.” In other words, Lt. Col. Thomas H. Green (who worked in the Office of the Military Governor), just happened to spend most of 1941 preparing “general orders” (i.e. orders concerning martial law) that just happened to be ready for implementation upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Hawaii Defense Act of 1941 was passed by Hawaii’s civilian government only weeks prior to Pearl Harbor and granted Hawaii’s civilian Governor broad powers in the hopes that the military would not step in to control Hawaii during a war emergency. Unfortunately, the legislation was rendered completely useless during the Army’s rule of Hawaii and, only after amending the Defense Act in 1943 with additional gubernatorial powers, did some semblance of control return to Hawaii’s civilian government.

Implications for Today

So, going on what we already know from history, a conceivable dictatorship scenario could occur here in America if:

The President declared a national state of emergency, which would then allow him the unprecedented power to rule unchallenged (i.e. completely free of normal checks and balances) by his ability to give direct orders to DHS, FEMA and the “Council of Governors” — all of whom must answer directly to the President in a national emergency and no one else. And don’t forget how the latest DoD announcement gave FEMA its own military force (i.e. the National Guard Homeland Response Force units). Furthermore, FEMA can, and has, in time of crisis, called upon NORAD and NORTHCOM for additional military assistance. With National Guard units under the direction of FEMA and/or the “Council of Governors,” our current State and local governments could easily be reduced to strictly ceremonial status and thus allow the President to exercise full dictatorial power backed by the military forces under his direct command.

In other words: Martial law in America.

Further exacerbating this harrowing possibility, our State governments have been slowly weakened over time through:

  • Constant federal regulation and unconstitutional federal interference;
  • Acceptance of federal funds with all their time-consuming red tape and sovereignty-weakening strings attached;
  • Unconstitutional federalization of the National Guard; and
  • The real threat of bankruptcy in the current financial meltdown.

As evidenced by the pending federal lawsuit against Arizona (which clearly violates the 11th Amendment), the federal government is out to punish any State that threatens to assert its sovereignty (even when, as is the case with Arizona, the State is merely trying to take up the slack where the federal government has been derelict). We also have a situation where the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana and other States waited for federal permission to protect themselves against incoming oil from the BP disaster. Unconscionably, the failure of the federal government to grant such permits has resulted in greater damage to the coastal region and the further collapse of our economy.

Fly in the Ointment

The President’s new “Council of Governors” has been criticized from the start.

As Pastor, pundit and ’08 Presidential Candidate, Chuck Baldwin, pointed out in a January article, ” … what is not being disclosed is what powers will be conferred upon the 10 gubernatorial council members and what authorities they will be required to cede to the federal government.”

Already the “Council of Governors” have direct contact with the DOD, the Coast Guard, the National Guard and DHS. But an even more important question remains: In a state of emergency, would these Governors also act as military governors (as happened in Hawaii during WWII)?

Interesting side notes: The “Council of Governors” chosen in February by President Obama include Governors from each FEMA region, with the exception of Region 5 (the Midwest), while two of the Governors, Maryland’s Martin O’Mailey and Virginia’s Robert McDonnell, both come from Region 2 (the Northeast). Also of concern is the fact that Puerto Rican Governor, Luis Fortuno, is a member of the “Council of Governors.” (Puerto Rico recently had civil-unrest incidents which resulted in police wielding batons and using pepper spray on protesters.) The headquarters for FEMA Region 9, Oakland, recently announced that police will not respond to certain crimes (such as burglary), while, at the same time, hundreds of other local, regional and state law enforcement officers responded to the recent “Oscar Grant Verdict” riots and up to 21,000 National Guard were placed on stand-by (thus setting a dangerous precedent).

We’ve also noticed a disturbing pattern of FEMA Regions and/or Council Governors participating in the dubious practice of demonizing ordinary Americans for their political beliefs. For instance, in FEMA Region 9, the Associated Press reported earlier this week that the Oakland freeway shooter was allegedly connected to the Tea Party movement. In 2008, Council Governor, Jay Nixon (Missouri), supported the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, which labeled conservative Christians, militia members and those who support political candidates such as Ron Paul (R-TX) and Chuck Baldwin as “domestic terrorists.”

Summary

Thus the federal government’s unrelenting march toward the black abyss of globalist integration continues ever onward …

As evidenced by the extensive number of emergency drills taking place here and abroad and the Congressional legislation that is being passed under the “homeland security” banner, it is clear that the military establishment is constantly preparing for the day when it can vertically integrate from the federal to the local level without interference from civilian government (i.e. “we the people”). Should the worst occur, such as a massive evacuation of the Gulf Coast region, or a large-scale terrorist attack (which the establishment has been calling for), the federal government has made ample provision to insure that the President will be the sole person in charge and can back his/her dictates up with deadly force (if necessary).

So, by implementing the “keys to dictatorship” described herein, the executive branch of government has created a separate, almost parallel, governing structure along with the military firepower to back it up. More ominous still, is the fact that all these unelected officials — from the Pentagon to the Council of Governors — have been granted power that is not subject to the normal checks and balances guaranteed by our Constitution and, even worse, they are answerable to the President alone.

This, surely, is a recipe for disaster?

Footnote:

* “Constitutional Liberty in World War II: Army Rule and Martial Law in Hawaii, 1941-1946,” Scheiber, Harry N. and Scheiber, Jane L., Western Legal History, Volume 3, Number 2, Summer/Fall 1990

Recommended reading:

Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946)
White v. Steer (1946)
Hirabayashi v. US. (1942) — upholding military tribunal convictions
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
Hawaii Under Army Rule, Anthony, J. Garner, 1955

Advertisements

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: