• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Trump’s “Day One” Dictatorship

PAF

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
12,000
Trump’s “Day One” Dictatorship


By Jacob G. Hornberger
The Future of Freedom Foundation
November 29, 2024


During his recent campaign for the presidency, Donald Trump made it clear that he fully intended to become a dictator on day one of his presidency. Then, a few days ago, he confirmed that as soon as he becomes president, he intends to declare a “national emergency” to justify his use of the military establishment to round up and deport an estimated 13 million immigrants living here in the United States without official permission.

I know that it’s not considered a politic thing to do to bring up acts committed by German leader Adolf Hitler. But I disagree. When it comes to dictatorship, I think most everyone would agree that Hitler sets the standard. Thus, if a ruler does something that Hitler did, I think that a presumption arises that that act should be viewed with some suspicion. Therefore, sometimes such a comparison can be helpful.

When I read that Trump intended to declare a “national emergency” in order to exercise extraordinary powers that he could not otherwise legally exercise, what came immediately to my mind was the Enabling Act.

When terrorists fire-bombed the Reichstag, Hitler went to the German parliament, declared that there was a “national emergency” involving terrorism and communism, and sought the grant of extraordinary emergency powers. If the Reichstag had voted against him, he could not have exercised such powers, at least not legally.

Hitler promised that the grant of “emergency” powers would be only “temporary.” As soon as the emergency was over, the powers could be taken away from him.

The Reichstag agreed to give Hitler the “temporary” emergency powers he sought. The legislators did that with the Enabling Act, which was enacted on March 23, 1933. That was many years before Hitler would implement the Holocaust.

One big problem is that these extraordinary emergency powers enabled Hitler to consolidate power so that by the time the Enabling Act was set to expire, it was too late to stop his permanent dictatorial rule. With his skillful use of the military and the Gestapo, he was able to ensure that resistance to his dictatorial rule was futile.

Interestingly, however, whenever the Enabling Act (or a renewal of it) was set to expire, Hitler would dutifully ask the Reichstag for another renewal of the law. He did this all the way to the day he died.


Trump is not dumb. He knows that “emergencies” have always been the time-honored way for rulers to exercise and consolidate power. In fact, our Founding Fathers and our American ancestors understood that principle as well. That’s why they provided no emergency exception in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They knew that that if they provided an emergency exception, it would effectively nullify the concept of limited and restricted powers of the Constitution.

It’s important to recognize that there is a difference between what Trump is doing compared to what Hitler did. Hitler went to the legislative branch of the German government and sought the grant of emergency extraordinary powers. Trump isn’t doing that. Instead, he wants to use a law previously enacted by Congress that enables him to decree a “national emergency” and then to exercise “emergency” powers — powers that entail the use of the military.

You can count on the military-intelligence establishment to follow orders and do whatever Trump orders them to do. As far as they are concerned, when they follow the president’s orders, they are fulfilling their vow to support and defend the Constitution.

Moreover, the possibility that the federal judiciary will declare Trump’s “national emergency” decree to violate the Constitution is, in my opinion, virtually nil. That’s because Trump’s power grab involves the military, and the federal courts have long been loathe to buck anything that involves the national-security establishment.

Our American ancestors fiercely opposed large, permanent military-intelligence establishments, which they called “standing armies,” because they considered them to be the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a citizenry. (See my article “The Dangers of a Standing Army”). In his Farewell Address, President Dwight Eisenhower pointed out that the new governmental system that 20th-century Americans adopted — i.e., a “national-security state” or what he called the “military-industrial-complex” — posed a grave threat to the rights and liberties of the American people.

Of course, there will be plenty of Americans who will be cheering Trump’s “emergency” decree and his use of the U.S. military-intelligence establishment to ferret out and rid our nation of the “illegals” and the “invaders,” just as there were multitudes of Germans cheering the Enabling Act and Hitler’s use of the military establishment and the Gestapo to keep the German people “safe” from the terrorists and the communists. In the process, they will be celebrating the destruction of their own rights and liberties.



Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/11/jacob-hornberger/trumps-day-one-dictatorship/


 
We have been invaded.

It is the president's constitutional duty to call up the various military forces of the country, which to my mind should also include citizen militias, to repel the invaders and secure the national border.

But fear not, all this is just hot air...there will be no mass deportations, the second Trump tries, 50 million communist lawfare groups will file 100 million lawfare suits and the whole thing will get bogged down in the courts for years.
 
So, you are anti Ron Paul and Rand Paul, both of who fully agree with the article, I take it.

Yes, I am.

Ron ran in 2008 with position that we should bring the troops home and use them to guard our border.

I know Rand disagrees with using military force to expel invaders.

I disagree and always have.

Trade and immigration have always been a point of disagreement with both these men.

I don't fret over it.
 
We have been invaded.

It is the president's constitutional duty to call up the various military forces of the country, which to my mind should also include citizen militias, to repel the invaders and secure the national border.

But fear not, all this is just hot air...there will be no mass deportations, the second Trump tries, 50 million communist lawfare groups will file 100 million lawfare suits and the whole thing will get bogged down in the courts for years.


So just to understand you crystal clear, you have no problem whatsoever with Standing Armies, and government manufactured "crises" to make them so in order to facilitate and enact them? Is that correct?


Our American ancestors fiercely opposed large, permanent military-intelligence establishments, which they called “standing armies,” because they considered them to be the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a citizenry.​
 
So just to understand you crystal clear, you have no problem whatsoever with Standing Armies, and government manufactured "crises" to make them so in order to facilitate and enact them? Is that correct?


Our American ancestors fiercely opposed large, permanent military-intelligence establishments, which they called “standing armies,” because they considered them to be the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of a citizenry.​

Yes I have a problem with standing armies.

The expulsions should be conducted by citizen militias and federal marshals.
 
How dare you not overreact with the appropriate emotional response. You are now officially labeled anti Ron Paul, lol.

The article and its contents did not agree with you and make you feel warm, fuzzy and gooey inside, so obviously it's wrong :rolleyes:
 
Yes I have a problem with standing armies.

The expulsions should be conducted by citizen militias and federal marshals.


I still am not crystal clear with your position. You said "It is the president's constitutional duty to call up the various military forces". To me that supports and endorses "standing armies", especially in how it relates to Trump's own Agenda47 where he also wants to immunize them.

Help me out, AF, without mincing words. I just want to see where we're headed so that I can fully prepare.

Andy why should "federal" anything be involved? To obtain more contracts and federal tax dollars?

Lastly, should citizen militia have the Right to go door-to-door and onto Private Property without Warrants, just to make you, [MENTION=30874]asurfaholic[/MENTION] and [MENTION=962]RJB[/MENTION] feel happy and good inside?
 
Last edited:
I still am not crystal clear with your position. You said "It is the president's constitutional duty to call up the various military forces". To me that supports and endorses "standing armies", especially in how it relates to Trump's own Agenda47 where he also wants to immunize them.

Help me out, AF, without mincing words. I just want to see where we're headed so that I can fully prepare.

And why should "federal" anything be involved? To obtain more contracts and federal tax dollars?

Because we have a federal constitution that is supposed to be the law.

The standing army is already here.

Rather than continue to use it to harass, spy and oppress citizens, use it for intended purpose, to repel invasions.

Then disband it and use citizen militias, marshals and deputies to enforce, patrol and protect the border.

But why are we going down this pointless rabbit hole yet again?

I can not expect you to support such an action, you do not believe in the concept of a nation, you do not believe in this nation and you hate most of the people in it.
 
Because we have a federal constitution that is supposed to be the law.

The standing army is already here.

Rather than continue to use it to harass, spy and oppress citizens, use it for intended purpose, to repel invasions.

Then disband it and use citizen militias, marshals and deputies to enforce, patrol and protect the border.

But why are we going down this pointless rabbit hole yet again?

I can not expect you to support such an action, you do not believe in the concept of a nation, you do not believe in this nation and you hate most of the people in it.


I am going down this "rabbit hole" because just because something is "already here" [standing armies] does not make it right. This government is using fear porn in order to grow itself once again, and every time a crisis is invented, people fall for it and we end up paying dearly in terms of both money and liberty.

We have already discussed the rightful remedy which also defends/protect my Bill of Rights, but that seems to go by the way-side.

As opposed to you, I want a nation of Individual Rights, Private Contract and Private Property Rights - not a "nation" like East Germany, per the OP article ;-)
 
Last edited:
So, you are anti Ron Paul and Rand Paul, both of who fully agree with the article, I take it.

Whatever you want to think have at it. I just have zero interest in reading anything that starts off with calling trump literally hitler. Same old leftist BS is same old.

As AF said- there was an invasion. I support the president taking extraordinary measures to delete the invaders. Sue me.
 
Desperate times require desperate measures.

The alternative is to continue down the same path we are already on, which is unacceptable.
 
Would it be appropriate for US military to be posted on the border and to warn those trying to enter to not enter? Fire warning shot and then shoot to kill if necessary? I would imagine that would deter entry.
 
I have travelled into Mexico and seen officials of some capacity maybe army, I don't know with machine guns and people against a wall. It seems like if you are in Mexico and not aligned with their agenda, you are met with severe force.
 
I still am not crystal clear with your position. You said "It is the president's constitutional duty to call up the various military forces". To me that supports and endorses "standing armies", especially in how it relates to Trump's own Agenda47 where he also wants to immunize them.

Help me out, AF, without mincing words. I just want to see where we're headed so that I can fully prepare.

Andy why should "federal" anything be involved? To obtain more contracts and federal tax dollars?

Lastly, should citizen militia have the Right to go door-to-door and onto Private Property without Warrants, just to make you, [MENTION=30874]asurfaholic[/MENTION] and [MENTION=962]RJB[/MENTION] feel happy and good inside?

Oh wow. I got a mention. I am beyond honored.
 
Whatever you want to think have at it. I just have zero interest in reading anything that starts off with calling trump literally hitler. Same old leftist BS is same old.

As AF said- there was an invasion. I support the president taking extraordinary measures to delete the invaders. Sue me.

Step 1: Compare the subject to someone else.
Step 2: Spend the majority of the article discussing how someone else was bad.
Step 3: Offer nothing as a solution.
Step 4: PANIC
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
Back
Top