Friday, August 22, 2003

(You may repost this wherever you like as long as you keep it intact, including all of my sig at the end. I'm leaving the URLs expanded in case anyone wants to post this in a text-only form w/o HTML codes.)

George W. Bush gave a speech yesterday in my hometown. Here's my response.

This probably differs from most other Republican reactions to Bush's speech (, but you should be used to that from me by now. ;-) If not, and you're startled by anything you read, understand I'm comparing this speech (at least the last 9 minutes of it, which is all I got) to the law and the naked facts, not to current political rhetoric or the well-managed conventional "wisdom" you get in the mass media (including FNC).

The following questions are _not_ rhetorical.

He says "medical liability reform is a national issue that requires a national solution" ("because frivolous lawsuits... affect the federal budget"). Where is the constitutional authority for such a "national solution"? How has it been determined that anything affecting the federal budget is, by law, automatically within federal jurisdiction?

He says "I have a responsibility as your president to make sure the judicial system runs well, and I have met that duty." What about Irwin Schiff being forbidden by a court to sell his book ( Is that "the judicial system running well"? People are still being prosecuted under 26 USC ยง7203 (, which is literally impossible for anyone to ever violate (thanks to Vernice Kuglin for challenging the feds on this one and winning -- -- not that that will likely stop them from further criminal behavior). Is that "the judicial system running well"? We still have asset forfeiture "laws" being upheld by the courts under which the government can charge a citizen's property (inanimate objects!) with crimes, confiscate it, and only return it if their owners can prove that their property is not guilty ( (large amounts of cash are seized this way in blatantly illegal acts of pure, naked theft). Is that "the judicial system running well"? I guess it is, depending on what the definition of "well" is.

He wants an "energy bill" to implement his "energy plan". Where is that in the Constitution? (Interstate commerce??) And is this really something the private sector couldn't or wouldn't handle on its own?

He says "In this new responsibility society, each of us is responsible for loving our neighbor just like we'd like to be loved ourself." Hmmm. I think that's true, but is it the President's concern? He says "Shortly after September 11, I formed what's called the USA Freedom Corps" ( which seems totally illegal too; that page mentions "At the same time, we are working to expand and strengthen federal service programs like the Peace Corps, Citizen Corps, AmeriCorps, and Senior Corps, and to raise awareness of and break down barriers to service opportunities with all federal government agencies." National service programs sprouting like weeds? Increasing involvement of citizens with national government? This is republican?? It's not even _fiscally_ conservative!

He says "Abroad, we seek to lift whole nations by spreading freedom." A much earlier second-generation President, John Quincy Adams, once said "[America]...has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings.... She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force."

Now you all stand and cheer as JQA's ugly prophecy is fulfilled in every detail. There are many excuses; none are valid. The plain truth is that you are enabling the power-mad among us to centralize political power ever further; under Clinton it was in "liberal" ways, and now it's in "conservative" ways... but notice, none of the "liberal" centralizations of power have gone anywhere. Nor will these [neo-]"conservative" ones disappear, either. Watch. "There's nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." --Ronald Reagan

Lots and lots of things he says he wants. Most of them actually sound pretty good to me (aside from the criminal nature of using the federal government to achieve them, that is), but... he's the _executive_. Instead of focusing on policy, he should be focusing on doing his actual JOB: taking care that the laws of the United States (which are made by Congress, not him) are faithfully executed. He is living out, as so many presidents before him have done, precisely what Carroll Quigley discussed:

"[T]he two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.... But either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will have none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
--Carroll Quigley, in "Tragedy and Hope", 1966

Emphasis on the word "basic" there. Despite differences on some things, both Bush and Clinton have furthered the "basic" shift in power away from Congress and to the President, as well as the "basic" shift in emphasis away from states and to the feds. This is a very dangerous trend!!! That Bush is "conservative" (presuming he is) will be no comfort when the next would-be tyrant takes his place, inheriting all the same powers of policy-setting and agenda-pushing -- and, doubtless, seeking to expand them even further.

Instead of being made giddy by the cult of personality (not to mention the embarrassingly cliched speechifying) surrounding "W", Republicans should be pressing him to reverse this collectivist trend. I feel quite safe in telling you not to expect his pals in the CFR and the other globalist groups to do it; they have big plans for the world under their control (, so they want more collectivism, not less. How about you?
Jamie W. "visualize honest media" Jackson

"Power is of a grasping, encroaching nature... (it) aims at extending itself and operating according to mere will, whenever it meets with no balance, check, constraint, or opposition of any kind."
--Jonathan Mayhew


Post a Comment

<< Home