Are you saying that the things she described are not going on? Calling someone like this a tin foil hat wearing crazy is easy and I used to do just that. However, I rarely see anyone doing more than name calling when it comes to discrediting what they are saying. I am deaply concerned with the type of hopeless mentality that creaps up when I mention politics to random people and I think the ideas expressed in this essay need to be addressed.

Yes. I would like to see your refutation of the shock doctrine. It seems GOP 101. Use any crisis to push through the neo-con agenda. Drill here, drill now becomes bomb here, bomb now, or transfer billions to wall street here and now.

I saw Naomi Wolf speak last night. Besides her annoying schtick of ditzy-braniac, her message was pretty on-point. I concur with ren and Brutus, and think you, Peter, should account for the "reality" with which you are supposedly in-touch...Do you really think the Founding Fathers would support our current agenda?

One better hope that drill here, drill now becomes a reality - it may be the one thing that can pull the mess that the Democrats - including Bill Clinton, Obama, Chris Dodd, Schumer, Barney Frank and company got us into. Does one really think that the Founding Fathers would agree with an agenda that including giving taxpayers' money (via Freddie and Fannie) to people who could not afford to buy homes just because they were a minority. This agenda pushed by Democrats which is making me the taxpayer who has played by the rules suffer because of it. I highly doubt that our Founding Fathers would agree with the Democrats agenda.

The Ashbrook Center should invite her to give her speech/opinion in person. I'm not being facetious.

Her talk would spark an hours-long discussion among her, the Ashbrooks, the professors, and the audience about what the Founders really believed: what exactly their legacy is; how we might construct their positions on today's policies; how much the Enlightenment did or didn't influence the Founders' thought; how egalitarian was their thought; how they understood (popular) political participation; how exactly the American ideal is international etc.

American-ness is, of course, what the Ashbrook Center is dedicated to understanding. Engaging Naomi Wolf in the give-and-take of conversation would be a fine way to hone that understanding. And, of course, an invitation to speak at the Ashbrook Center is not necessarily an endorsement. Plus she'd be an interesting guest this season, since she's been said to have the the aura of election.

Nice double-posted ad hominem attack, "Cubs fan." Just toss out a quick, dismissive insult and be on your way.

The irony is amazing.

I just hope that in posting this under the one liner the intent was more than to poke to fun. I have sat in classrooms at ashland and I can not believe that this type of concern is now being treated this way. I just hope that what Cubs fan mentioned about the source of funding is the reason for the dismissive attitude.

What I had called a "fascist shift" in the United States, projections I had warned about as worst-case scenarios, was now surpassing my imagination: in 2008, thousands of terrified, shackled illegal immigrants were rounded up in the mass arrests which always characterize a closing society

Perhaps some of the many faux conservatives on this thread would care to defend this particular piece of garbage. Brutus? anonymouse?

I have sat in classrooms at ashland and I can not believe that this type of concern is now being treated this way.

What specifically do you mean by "this type of concern"? Do you mean her "Oh my God! The USA is turning into Nazi Germany" crap?

John, you are making the asinine equation of conservatism with Republicanism, and I won't stand for that. I'm a classical liberal/libertarian, and I care enough for my country to think critically and BROADLY about important issues, and not just to cheer one party's political machinations. Consider, for example:

-the criminal abuse of executive privilege in this nation and the crumbling of the Constitutional separation of powers

-the shock doctrines that insist we act blindly and immediately with regards to war and our international economy, further centralizing both money and power in the hands of a few (Blackwater, Halliburton, Goldman Sachs)--a steep road to economic fascism. You fiddle while Rome burns if you think electing McCain over Obama matters more than getting this bailout right (or rejecting it entirely).

-Main Stream Media that mocks informed and politically-engaged citizens and actively suppresses true political discourse and genuinely different ideas (excluding Ron Paul from the Fox debates, for example) Funny, I seem to recall him predicting this financial crisis!

-the authorization of torture, and the subversion of the rule of law that was necessary to make it so, along with the abuses of language ("methods of enhanced interrogation"); you may laugh, but there can be no lasting freedom when we refuse to call things by their right names, and when we don't abide by our own rule of law.

-state-sponsored intimidation: arrests of reporters during the RNC, who were released after a few days, but never charged with any crime

-FISA

...you know, to name a few. Illegal immigration is a serious problem, and we need to deal with it in a legal way, possibly including deportation. But I will NEVER disparage the human rights of those illegal immigrants. Give them the dignity of being subject to the laws of our nation according to due process and/or send them back from whence they came. But don't suppose that you're better than them because of the fortunate accident of your birth, or suppose for one moment that democracy is not liable to become tyrannous if powers go unchecked.

I know what you must be going through John. I was once seduced by the tales of rush limbaugh and fired up over the whole liberals are to blame mentality. However, I just can't believe in that anymore. The potential is there for the united states to devulge into a situation that makes Nazi Germany look mild. Not that their are not many similarities including the use of false flag events in order to get the public to embrace the loss of their liberty. If you really like being a "conservative" don't look into to any of this. Its not a happy existence when you take a real look into what is going on. Mabye your undying loyalty to conservatism will put you beyond the reach of the potential horror that is being massed almost daily now. We have this https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html along with CAP and the northcom homeland partrols. Now we are going to bankroll a few banks so that they can consolidate complete control of the American economy. What will you say if in the next few years the answer presented is the Amero? The level of inflation is going to be high and the currency is going down again if this goes through so watch someone start pushing for the idea of a North American currency which was the goal all allong.

you are making the asinine equation of conservatism with Republicanism

Please cite where exactly I have done that. I mean it. If you ignore this, as I know you wil, I'll hound you forever more until you DO respond.

Consider, for example: -the criminal abuse of executive privilege in this nation and the crumbling of the Constitutional separation of powers

You don't the slightest idea what you are talking about, which is why you engage in this sort of vague nonsense. I'd ask you for details about this alleged "crimianl" activity if I did not know that I'd get more baffelgab in response.

Your precious Naomi thinks that people like Paul should be put in prison camps.

Illegal immigration is a serious problem, and we need to deal with it in a legal way, possibly including deportation.

It is precisely "dealing with it in a legal way" which your precious Naomi is characterising as the onset of fascism. Did you somehow fail to understand what she wrote? Here is something for you to put what you imagine to be a fine mind at work on: What sort of politicians do your illegals elect in their own countries? What sort do they support in ours?

suppose for one moment that democracy is not liable to become tyrannous if powers go unchecked

Oh, shut up, you pretentious twentysomething pretend conservative. It's you and the other morons at LewRockwell who are in bed with the forces of tyranny.

I know what you must be going through John.

You don't have the slightest clue about me.

I was once seduced by the tales of rush limbaugh and fired up over the whole liberals are to blame mentality

Are you bright enough to articulate why you stopped believing that liberals are to blame? Give it a shot.

The potential is there for the united states to devulge into a situation that makes Nazi Germany look mild.

Have I pointed out lately that you are a pure and perfect moonbat? Again, feel free to elaborate on what the US will do that will make Nazi Germany look mild. That should be entertaining reading.

Mabye your undying loyalty to conservatism will put you beyond the reach of the potential horror that is being massed almost daily now.

How can "potential horrors" be "unleashed almost daily"? If they are "unleashed" then they are not "potential". That's just one example of your sloppy writing and equally sloppy thinking.

What will you say if in the next few years the answer presented is the Amero?

I'll say, "Goddamn liberals", of course. You are the one who seems to be guilty of what anonymouse accused me of - "you are making the asinine equation of conservatism with Republicanism". If the Amero comes to pass it will be thanks to people like you and anonymouse, not to conservatives.

I'm a classical liberal/libertarian

It is classical liberal/libertarian dogma which has brought this country to its knees. Bush is a classical liberal/libertarian, though you are too ignorant of history and politics to understand that.

and I care enough for my country to think critically and BROADLY about important issues, and not just to cheer one party's political machinations.

How strange then that like most Rockwellers, you spend all your time attacking one political party, the Republican, and zero time attacking the Democrats. I suppose in your eyes the Dems are "libertarian".

You fiddle while Rome burns if you think electing McCain over Obama matters more than getting this bailout right (or rejecting it entirely).

I'd appreciate it if you two clowns could get your heads out of your asses long enough to notice that the nicest thing I've ever said about McCain was that he is a moron. That should give even people as stupid as you two a clue about who I'm voting for.

Sorry "real Cubs fan" - I didn't engage in ad hominem, and I actually speak from some direct, first-hand experience with the Ashbrook Center. So, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, if anything serious, by merely cutting and pasting my comment with a little switch.

Good, your mad as hell and thats a start.

Consider, for example: -the criminal abuse of executive privilege in this nation and the crumbling of the Constitutional separation of powers

Please find below just a few examples of the expanding executive powers. These signing statements are public domain, so look them up if you can't believe it.

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.