Biden, Hitler and Mussolini walk into a bar . . . .

Biden, Hitler and Mussolini walk into a bar. 

Biden, explaining to Hitler and Mussolini the reasons for what he believes are constitutional vaccine mandate laws, says: "This is not about freedom or personal choice. It’s about protecting yourself and those around you . . . ." In other words, safety.

Then Hitler reads the Presidential decree of 1933 which gave him extraordinary powers to take over state governments based on the idea of keeping Germany safe from communism, saying: "Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

Mussolini, explaining fascism, says: "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans, which care only for the species and seem ready to sacrifice the individual." In other words don't worry about individual rights, but only the group, in the name of safety.

Not a funny joke? I know. The quotes are real, but it's no joke at all. However, there is an important point. I am not saying Biden is just like Hitler or Mussolini. Yet, anyway. Though his intent to flood the country with immigrants based on his race theories (he has said it will be good when there isn't a "white" majority), his gross incompetence and the ongoing going leftist urging of more racism and their surge to power have made him one of the worst presidents in history in just a few months and is helping pave the road to fascism. It started before him and will likely continue long after.

It is so critical to recognize that fascism happens differently every time (that I will put it in my brand new font - Fjalla One, if you care). It just ends up the same, with authoritarianism and brutality. Hitler didn't show up suddenly in Germany in 1933 and say, come on everyone, lets get ready to murder.  It often starts slowly by a small group of very energetic people with a vendetta who prepare the conditions for it - feelings of great division in a society, the inability of the normal processes to handle change, the destruction or control of important government or public functions (e.g., the police, the media), feelings of victimization, hatred and lies, lies, lies. Often, like Hitler, they want the appearance of legality. 

And what's their solution in most events - more governmental power - allegedly for everyone's benefit, but really favoring one or more favored groups - and the consequential loss of individual rights. That German decree referred to above, was specifically promulgated based on the lie that it was necessary because (the Nazis claimed) the Reichstag fire was caused by Communists and Jews. How similar the January 6, insurrection is now claimed by Democrats and socialists to have been called for or incited by Trump (who literally did the opposite - asked for peaceful protest). If you listen to repeated Biden statements, the federal government will take away people's rights (by bullying those who choose not to get vaccinated) because of safety. We are racing down that road, and whatever means are necessary will be used, including the new "go to" reason to limit freedom - safety. 

Using safety to take away people's rights is not new. It's always been around. I'm certainly not anti-safety (or anti-vaccine, for that matter - I'm vaccinated and would have been first to get it if I could have been). When it doesn't violate constitutional rights, few things could be more important than safety for a myriad of reasons. But, as years go buy we see more and more of the use of safety to try and pass unconstitutional legislation or to legitimize a president to act without legislation. Whether its more cameras or tapping your phone or calling China to say don't worry - we won't let Trump nuke you, it is a very sellable way of ending freedom, overriding the laws or of dooming your society.

Concerning specifically these proposed federal mandates - I am not aware of any federal vaccine requirements before this (they will say it is not "required," but you will be fired or excluded if you don't go along and paid if you do). State and local vaccination laws, yes. Federal no. Even the Supreme Court case that upheld a smallpox vaccination mandate in 1905, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, involved a state - not the federal government. If there is, I'll mea culpa. I'm always learning something new.

In fact, the Jacobsen case might be used to find the new federal mandates unconstitutional. It held, among other things: "The authority of the state to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power,- a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution." The state, not the federal government, has the police powers. That's one of my chief complaints with Obamacare or even a Republican substitute - it used the opened up the entire health care system to federal intervention.

The federal government, despite every appearance of being able to legislate about any subject or issue it wishes, is actually supposed to be limited. Two cases not that long ago showed that congress couldn't just legislate about anything it desired. In 1995, in United States v. Lopez, it was held that "The Constitution...withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation." In fact, the court would not "pile inference upon inference" to convert the the Commerce Clause granting congress the right to legislate about interstate commerce to a general police power - which was the province of the states. Lopez concerned a federal attempt to regulate guns - it was about safety, of course. 

Five years after Lopez the court shot down another federal law, this time concerning violence to women. The law was clearly about safety. What rational person is not for protecting women or everyone, for that matter, from violence or is against gun safety (no, gun owners are not against gun safety)? People will always disagree about the best way to effectuate it, but the reason these were cases, was because of federal attempts at usurping state power. It probably has worked more than it has failed, mostly because the left keeps trying. 

Of course, Biden knows all about federalism and so do all the states. What Republicans and conservatives don't seem to get is that they just don't care. Do you remember not so long ago when Trump was president that some of the states with Democrat governments said if he tried to interfere with their handling of Covid-19 they would not listen to him, because it wasn't the federal government's place? What's the difference now? Just that a Democrat is in power in the White House. Here, for example, is an article from March, 2020 - in other words, the beginning of lockdowns and so forth, published in the Brookings Institute (probably the most famous left-wing think tank in the country) explaining to President Trump if he didn't want to violate the Constitution -Trump or governors: Who’s the boss? (brookings.edu). I will give them credit if they write a similar article now. 

Because Trump, unlike Biden, was not heading down the pathway of fascism, despite the left-wing drumbeat that he was fascism incarnate, he actually did not interfere with the states' Covid responses - and some, like New York and Michigan probably killed (I presume unintentionally) a lot of people in their control as a result. Will there ever be a real investigation into that? In any event, despite how vigilantly the governors protected their states while Trump was in office, I don't hear Democrat states complaining about the vaccine mandates and federalism now - only red states. 

Though federal powers have been greatly expanded since the 1905 Jacobsen case, which case I believe both sides will rely on), so too have the definitions of due process, privacy and equal protection - all expanded. In fact, both as a constitutional principle and as a subject of federal legislation, medical privacy has also grown tremendously (the HIPAA laws) as the notion of "my body, my choice." This will weigh against, not for, federal vaccine mandates. Not that the left is paying that any attention. 

Unfortunately I can no longer maintain the belief that our Supreme Court really binds itself by established law. Many of the justices prefer to establish law. That has been true of the right and left at times, but now seems like it is the goal of the left. If you don't believe it, ask yourself why if they can't get the justices to do it, they say - pack the court. Despite even the recriminations of Justice Thomas that it is not so, the Roberts Court seems to more about protecting the court as an institution and being liked by the media more so than actually applying the law. I suppose with the Democrats threats of court packing and Senator Goebbels' - sorry - Schumer's, public personal threats against individual judges if they did not vote the way his party wanted (I have never seen such a gleeful Nazi imitation by a U.S. Senator - Unhinged: Chuck Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch And Kavanaugh - YouTube), they are all rightly a little nervous of the court being diminished, even neutered, by the oncoming fascism (though I'm sure they would not put it that way). If people like Justice Thomas, who doesn't worry about what people think doesn't say so, who will? I didn't always think that way, but I've given up defending them, particularly Roberts. Not that I think he's a fascist, just deliberately determined to protect the court from the only ones attacking it - the left, by compromising as much as he can. He's not alone.

Why should I say that this mandate is on the road to fascism and not just that there is a new administrative rule I don't like? You have to look at the context and what is going on in our society. I could go on and on for another long-winded post (I excel at long-winded), but I won't. I write about it all the time and you can just look at past posts or the ones surely coming. You know - End border enforcement, abolish the electoral college, add D.C. or split states, pack the Supreme Court, threaten Supreme Court Justices, physically threaten Republican members of congress, all towards one party power; threaten our allies (not Trump, but Democratic congresspersons threatened Ukraine, institute modern racism (whites are inherently evil) through the schools, military, federal agencies, engage in censorship by partnership with tech companies that are largely the village square now, the established Clinton campaign and FBI attempts to derail Trump's campaign, attempts to derail his administration and impeach him with the silliest impeachments to date (they now mean nothing - just a conventional tool) and the like. 

We are in danger, not just a little bit, because of what's going on, but gravely so. And, people, many of whom would know better if not conditioned to almost a Pavlovian response into believing Trump was some kind of bogeyman controlling marauders like Barnaby in Babes in Toyland and about to nuke China. I can no longer be shocked that the decent, intelligent people I know believe this to the degree that almost nothing else matters and no set of facts can change it. I've read about it all my life, and have seen it too many times in the last few years.

I don't particularly like writing about this "stuff." Fascism, the iniquities of an administration, the divisions in society, etc. But, it's important and I have to continue. And if the Republicans ever claw back power and head towards fascism, I will continue the same.