The term "fascism" is being kicked around in a rather cavalier fashion these days. Members of the far right wing — the birthers, the deathers, and the just-plain kooky — are screaming that the sky is falling, that the president's attempts to stabilize our teetering economy and provide healthcare to 48 million American who lack basic coverage amounts to a socialist takeover of the private sector — which is at the same time destroying our constitutional checks and balances. It's a pretty silly accusation given the track-record of the previous administration, which was, to say the least, rather dismissive of the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers.

Even still, the accusations continue to fly, despite essentially zero evidence that any such fascist or socialist takeover is imminent. But providing healthcare is the first step down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism, you say? Well, the 19 other developed nations in the world, European countries, Canada, Japan, etc., provide healthcare to their citizens, and you'd hardly call them fascist states. And many developed countries have used nationalization — whether on a temporary or permanent basis — to control and regulate key industries.

In fact, there are numerous examples of creeping socialism right here in the U.S. of A. We have socialist police departments, fire departments, and schools. Our libraries — where you can read books for free! — are socialist institutions of the first order. And don't forget the socialist road networks on which we drive every day. Some things, apparently, are just too important to be left to a for-profit private sector.

So, if President Obama were really a Stalinist stooge, what would his policies look like? Well, the first thing he would do would be to destroy the opposition. Not politically, mind you; political marginalization is something from which the GOP might recover. No, the president would round up his enemies — as Lenin and Mao did — and put them in reeducation camps. Those who refuse this indoctrination would simply be shot.

He would then move on to seizure of "ill-gotten" wealth. The blue-blooded families, the nouveau riche, and the entrepreneurs would see their fortunes confiscated by the government. Complain, and they too would face the firing squad. He would then move on to redistribution of this wealth. Land grants would reapportion everything from large agricultural parcels to Greenwich Village brownstones.

Our fascist president would also employ a brown-shirt army to go after his enemies with a single-minded zeal, rounding up anyone and everyone who expresses dissent, from right-wing talk-show hosts, to tea-bag protesters and Internet bloggers. They, too, would be forced into reeducation camps, or shot, on the whim of the Commander-in-Chief.

This is the face of real fascism, a face that employs violence, instead of argument, to stifle the opposition.

So, if you're driving down the road listening to Rush Limbaugh, if you're home on a quiet weeknight enjoying to the comic stylings of Glenn Beck, if you're in the supermarket chatting to a friend and you hear him or her talking about the rise of fascism in America, ask yourself whether any of these statements match what an honest-to-god dictatorship would actually look like.

And when you realize that such rhetoric is simply overblown hysteria emanating from people who make big bucks crying wolf — which is then parroted back by well-meaning folks who listen to their breathless pronouncements — you might wonder why it is that something as innocent as temporarily propping up the auto industry, or giving citizens the opportunity to go to the doctor when they need to do so, would cause some people to fear that we're all going to end up on work farms assembling iPods for our new Maoist masters. It simply doesn't compute, does it?

But people have a right to say what they will, even if their statements happen to be totally bonkers. It's a free country, after all.