What do you think...
Response to President Bush's State of the Union Address
President Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, while undeniably a superb piece of political gamesmanship, highlighted the fundamental disconnect between most of the President's positions and the principles of constitutionally-limited government. This is hardly a new development, since the leadership of both major parties has treated portions of the Constitution as a dead letter for generations. Nevertheless, as the only national party whose platform is 100% constitutional, we are duty-bound to remind the American public of what is really at stake with issues like terrorism, welfare, social security, and other matters attracting attention in Washington.
We agree with President Bush that our strength as a nation flows from the freedoms that we enjoy, and that we must strive, and, if necessary, make sacrifices, in order to protect those freedoms. But love of freedom and love of country are not necessarily the same thing. While we applaud the outpouring of genuine patriotism in the wake of 9-11 and the heartfelt desire to support the men and women serving in America's Armed Forces, we must point out that our freedoms are guaranteed in the final analysis by a United States Constitution that not only safeguards certain God-given rights but also imposes very clear restrictions on the powers of our own federal government. Love of freedom, therefore, must include a reverence for the Constitution and respect for the limits it places on power.
Unfortunately, many of our leaders in Washington have shown that they are willing to use crises to justify extra-constitutional expansion of government powers. Since 9-11, we have witnessed a significant expansion of executive powers to search without warrants, imprison without a trial, and pursue alleged criminals without accountability to due process. We heard President Bush argue for reauthorizing the Patriot Act, a bill that was rushed through Congress without proper scrutiny by lawmakers, and which embodies the old cliche about the devil being in the details. The Bush Administration is also completely unapologetic about authorizing the CIA and NSA to conduct domestic espionage, another extremely dangerous precedent that could become a pretext for further abuse of executive power by future administrations.
We have also become involved in two major overseas wars, neither of which was authorized by a Constitutionally-mandated Congressional declaration. The fact that we have not fought a declared war since World War II is not an excuse for cavalier disregard of this critical limit on the powers of the Executive branch, which was intended, as Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, to ensure that the American President would not possess the power of an Old World monarch to start wars at his own discretion. Nor are the various political arguments in favor of military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan justification for ignoring the Constitution. The power to start wars is easily abused, and has been exploited throughout history by unscrupulous despots to solidify their hold on power. If we continue to grant president after president carte blanche to wage war at his personal whim, we should not be surprised to see greater and greater abuses of this power, and more and more frequent resorts to military action all over the world.
Some in Congress have protested that the Bush Administration doctored the evidence to push America into war in Iraq. But few of those Congressmen were willing to hold President Bush accountable in the first place, by insisting that a Declaration of War be debated and voted upon.
President Bush made it clear that his vision, like that of most of his recent predecessors, is for America to continue to be militarily engaged all over the world, overthrowing hostile governments and waging an open-ended war on terrorism. He derided those who oppose such a course of action as "isolationists." America has never been isolationist, but it was once very sensibly non-interventionist. The Founding Fathers themselves were keenly interested in trade and diplomacy, and many of them were well-educated in foreign languages, culture and history. But they did not want America transformed into some kind of global policeman. They understood that America neither possessed the resources nor the moral authority to impose her will on the entire world.
In 1820, for example, when Greece was fighting a valiant battle for freedom against a cruel and oppressive Ottoman regime, America was pressured to lend her support to the cause. President John Quincy Adams, on July 4th of that year, responded to those who would have involved America in an overseas quarrel by reminding his listeners that America "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 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 standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty." This wise counsel is just as applicable today. Incidentally, the Greeks won their independence, fighting against one of the most powerful empires of the day, without American aid money and without American troops.
President Bush also took issue with what he and like-minded internationalists call protectionism. They accuse protectionists of building walls around America and trying to shut out world trade. We do not oppose trade as such. What we oppose are international agreements that deliberately hobble American industry. We also oppose unwise policies that not merely permit trade but throw open our borders, attempts to compromise our sovereignty under the guise of so-called "free trade" agreements like NAFTA and the WTO, and domestic laws that impose such steep taxes and regulatory penalties that American companies are given strong incentives to move their operations overseas.
President Bush rightly stated in his address that America still leads the world in talent. If that is the case, then why are so many talented American workers losing their jobs to overseas competitors? Simply put, it is because our own policies are making it prohibitively expensive to hire domestic workers for many functions. President Bush claims he wants to strengthen American workers and continue to encourage investment, research, and development. He stated "With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker." But his administration has done everything it can to give Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese a competitive advantage over American workers. The president simply cannot be given credit for sincerity in this matter.
The huge unpopularity of our government's immigration policy has forced our politicians to mouth pieties they disbelieve. The President said "Our nation needs orderly and secure borders. To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection." The very reason we do not have immigration enforcement and border protection is that there has been a deliberate policy under administrations of both parties not to enforce the laws of the land. The President goes on to reject amnesty which he championed when he thought he could get away with it.
In fact, all our establishment politicians serve corporate interests who would further drive down wages for working Americans and dilute the American national character with Third World immigrants whose tragic national histories too often leave them with no ability to appreciate America's legacy of ordered liberty and the rule of law.
The President correctly pointed out that America has become addicted to foreign oil, especially oil produced in unstable parts of the world. Yet he made no mention of the continual refusal of the federal government to authorize oil and natural gas extraction in places like the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, or of the burdensome regulations that have hamstrung domestic oil extraction for much of the last couple of decades.
President Bush, like almost everyone in Washington these days, believes that there are few problems that cannot be solved by the creative application of government power. In his address he recommended further federal involvement in education, health care, social security, and a host of other concerns. He said, for example, that "Our government has a responsibility to help provide health care for the poor and the elderly." In fact, nowhere is providing health care for the poor and elderly authorized in the U.S. Constitution. That these may be noble ends does not justify using unconstitutional means to attain them. The same may be said for federal government involvement in education, social security, welfare, and so forth.
To many Americans, this may sound cruel and heartless, because we have become so accustomed to demand that government provide for us the things that, in most cases, we can and ought to provide for ourselves. Those of us who champion limited constitutional government will always be at a rhetorical disadvantage to those who, like President Bush, prefer to disregard the Constitution and promise whatever they think will sell to a prime time audience.
But our vision is optimistic. We believe that only by returning to our constitutional roots will we make progress in paying off our colossal national debt, providing for our national security, and stabilizing our economy. We believe that ballooning costs in health care and education are best solved by less government intervention, not more. We expect our elected leaders to adhere strictly to their constitutional oaths of office, and make no apologies for holding them to their obligations. We want a strong America leading the worldwide cause of freedom, but by example, not by military force, unless absolutely necessary. We applaud the growth of marvelous new technologies like the Internet, where the absence of government oversight has allowed unprecedented innovation and wealth creation. We look forward to the day when the blight of abortion is once again illegal. Above all, we hope for a return to the moral values that made America great in the first place, and pray that Almighty God will bless our nation as we move in that direction.
Contact: Steven Bonta, Constitution Party Communications Director, email@example.com
That was good. Now let's see if we can modify the current political system to allow third parties with such novel ideas to become a viable alternative. Let me call my Republikrat Senator/Congressman and tell them to get to work on that. I'm sure they'll be receptive to the idea.
I heard, second hand, that Buchanan put it best on the night of the address.
Bush is a great "New Deal Republican".
Too bad it comes from a political party that is pretty much the christian taliban
Preamble to constitution party
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
For what it's worth that does not make them the Christian Taliban. Comments like that are part of the problem in this country. You don't have to like it, but working so hard to try and make it not true results in a state of decay because we ignore the principles this government was founded on. I don't have to be a Christian to see it either. I will say however that they do have some conflicts in there preamble as they intermix biblical foundation and principle with the gospel of Jesus Christ. One is very general and guiding in nature and one is very specific. They should change it to center on what the real message they are trying to portray is without so much of the heavily "church" influenced rhetoric.
The separation of church and state does not even exist as most people perceive it. There are restrictions placed upon the Federal Government itself but the States were allowed to sponsor specific churches if they wish etc. (Although I am confident as a result of my studies that had they felt it were appropriate they would have placed some restriction upon the States in this regard, however that in itself would have violated much more important principles of the structure of the Federal Government... It took Lincoln to truly overstep those bounds and begin about the downward spiral of State's Rights)
Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is very specific in it's wording - "Congress shall make..."
But then again what does that matter as we seem to have "free speech" zones now which clearly tramples Amendment I and violates OUR rights to peaceably assemble and seek redress of greviances. We all just sit around bleating and worrying about what religion someone professes.
I'm sure that someone will want to argue the point, but arguing about it changes nothing. It's hard to see now because most people don't realize that you are not even bound by the Federal Government when you are born here. In other words the entire structure of things has been so muddied that it's very hard to follow.
Common Law is based on biblical law, which does not entirely make it Christian, but still biblical in nature. Hence the carving of the ten commandments on the Supreme Court doors.
It's ironic that you have people that throw a fit because this was an Anglo European country when formed. That everything favored the "white man"
and then people will argue that it wasn't founded on Chrisitian principle and by Chrisitians. (No this is not to say that all of the Founders were Chrisitian) but the bulk of Europeans by the 18th Century were. Why? Because of the overwhelming oppresion of the Catholic and Episcopal churhces.
Which results in the things most of the Founders aboslutely agreed upon in their writings.
1. Organized religions - Chrisitian Churches were bad. They corrupted and manipulated both man and Government.
(This is important to look at an understand because it has great impact. Organized churches were bad for the same reasons that a too power central Federal Government was bad.)
2. In general the specifics of a man's faith were between him and his God.
3. It was not man's place to judge another based on anything beyond the actions of that man.
However this does not change the heavy influence of Chrisitian principle (not to be confused with any specfic church or clergy) on their beliefs and actions.
Most of the Founders were religious but chose to believe as they felt appropriate and aboslutely rejected the manipulation of "the" Church or Churches.
.... although I've now said enough to spend the next week getting flamed, I believe what I have written to be very close to the facts. I will also say however that I believe the actual picture to be much bigger than that. The Founders understood more than anything something which transcends specific religions. They understood the nature of the constant struggle between good and evil. They understood that Central "all powerful" churches were all too easily corrupted bringing good men blindly into the employ and designs of evil. They understood that for that Church to have influence in Government made it all encompassing.
Treety of Tripoli article 11
Passed unanimously 1797
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
As far as the constitution party being the christian taliban read their platform
Either way you missed the point because you turned right around and used as a rebuttal
is not founded on the Chrisitan religion.. which is true.
But again, missed the point.
as for whether they are the Christian Taliban, for now I consider it pointless because they currently have no power, no do they stand upon the edge of gaining any.
Rather I will continue to focus my attention on our loss of freedom and governance to World interests. The fact that we have toll roads being turned over to the King of Spain, a Federal Reserve that has always and will always be a private banking institution of the rich who then use it to control our government, a President who continues to chip away at the Constitution and declare himself above the law, and the list goes on...
All of these things are much more troubling than the Constitution party. But for the sake of argument, I would challenge that they even being "the Christian Taliban" would be far better than the current state of things. Why? Because they would still be constrained by the Constitution. Were they to break with that in power, I would turn on them. If the actually subscribe to Chrisitian principle or even religion, they are still bound within the constraints of that. Given the charter the publish, they are bound to tolerance as Christ taught them. If they broke with that then all Chrisitians should turn on them. Anyway you look at it, they #1 pose no threat of gaining any power at the moment. #2 Even if they did as long as they adhered to Chrisitian "principle" (which really is the key to both this and my previous post) then they are bound to a framework that can work for all people. The rest of it all just become issues that are supposed to keep us busy while our country is turned over to a World Empire.
The British Crown still plays games and still works toward world domination, they just got smart about it thanks to Mayer Amschel Bauer.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel
All of this? Way more disturbing than the rest.
If you want some light reading
Nice easy read on the Rothschild rise to power
2FALable, I like how you put it.
And from everything I have ever read authored by the founding fathers, it seems about half and half as far as what they believed religously, but most believed, as I, that a persons faith is between themselves and their makers.
Infortunately, I truly believe that our federal government as a whole is too immersed and rooted with "career" politicians for the pattern to be changed simply with changes in those running it.
It will/would take 2 to 3 generations of change to turn the tide, for a good portion of this countrys citizens are selfish and self centered. "Anything goes", as long as you are not taking from the gold stack directly in front of me.
The trick is always how to go from the present situation to the ideal in a practical, possible way, not pie-in-the-sky-it-would-be-nice-if..." sort of way.
For example, it's politically impossible to simply do away with 3/4th of the Federal government as the Constitution Party wants to do. I doubt they're serious about it as it would involve throwing literally millions of people out of jobs (tanking real estate in the DC area, etc).
But what could happen is a phased, politically possible transfer of jurisdiction (and hence, tax dollars) from Federal control to STATE or local control.... as this would empower the people to make financial decisions on a level they can actually hope to control votes wise... If the current federal employee was a STATE employee, it would mean state taxes go up while federal taxes go down... and it's easier for state populations to decide if they want to keep spending X on Y than it is for the nation as a whole to work through Federal Congress.
More local money means more local politics - which is a good thing.
apples to apples this wouldn't mean initially LESS money taxed, but it would do a huge thing for local political involvement and make it at least possible for a state to pass serious reform and cuts in budgets.
For example; why is the Fed involved in Housing and Urban Development again? Or Health and Human Services? Couldn't both agencies' job descriptions be taken care of on the local, (city or county) level? Why not?
I'm frankly AMAZED that no major commentator or pundit has never thought of this before. But then most Pundits are either lawyers or journalists, not post-grad philosophy majors with a decade of practical economic experience.
My mothers deed to her house (original) Says no negros jews or colored people. Sometimes the feds need to be involved. Put it back in state control and I can see new deeds like my moms being printed in places
The Mayflower Compact. If we go back to 1620 and the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, we find the very birth certificate of America. In this charter they recorded their purpose—clearly stating that it was for “the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.”
New England Confederation of 1643. This first American experiment in federation, written in 1643, stated that the one single aim of the American colonies was “to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel thereof in purities and peace.…”
Trinity Decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1892, the Court completed a 10-year examination of all of the documentation, which amounted to thousands of pages, concerning our founding. They came to a unanimous conclusion that “These…add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation….”
Founding Fathers’ Statements. In addition, there are volumes of documented statements by our Founders confirming our biblical foundations.
John Quincy Adams—President of the U.S. and one of the great lights in the early days of this country, said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
George Washington—First President and Father of our Country, has often been called a deist. A deist is defined as one who believes God created the world and then went on a long journey, leaving it to wind down on its own. Yet the evidence shows Washington was a devout Christian who arose at 4:00 every morning and spent an hour on his knees praying before an open Bible. In the evenings he dismissed himself from friends and family at 9:00 and returned to that same room, again kneeling before an open Bible in prayer. The idea that he would spend 2 hours every day praying to an absentee God is utterly ridiculous. In his Farewell Address he said this: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness….” According to Washington, no atheist was a patriot! And he added, “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Far from the popular idea that we can have morality without religion, Washington knew better and warned against it in his last words to the nation.
Thomas Jefferson—President, scientist, and author of the Declaration of Independence, he is the Founder who is said to have included the concept of “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. Yet no one seems to be able to find it. Well, it is found in article 52 of the Constitution…of the former Soviet Union! It is not in the U.S. Constitution at all! The phrase comes from his personal letter to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. It was virtually unheard of until 1947 when an ACLU lawyer by the name of Leo Pfeffer used it in his response to the Everson decision. But, in fact, the curator of the Library of Congress states that Jefferson, one of only two of the signers of the Declaration who wasn’t undeniably born-again, went through a conversion of sorts in the 1790s. He changed his views markedly and supported positions that his opponents had previously supported. Among other actions, while serving as both president and Superintendent of Washington D.C. schools, he required only two texts: the Bible and Watts Hymnal. Such commitment to use two clearly religious texts is hardly typical of the “separation of church and state” which is so often attributed to him.
Congress. The largest congregation in America at one time was meeting in, of all places, the House of Representatives! Weekly worship services once boasted an attendance of 2,000! These services took place the very week that Congress passed the 14th Amendment, which ACLU lawyers claim prohibits public religious observances! Not only that, but at one time, when there was a shortage of Bibles, Congress voted not only to distribute them, but to pay the printing costs! And it cannot be forgotten that Congress has appointed chaplains for the House and Senate throughout history. What many people don’t know is that the colonial military criminalized blasphemy and profanity with a sentence of 30 lashes! Washington believed that the cause of our country was in the hands of the Lord. How could we expect Him to grant us victory if we offend Him by allowing blasphemy among our forces?
Founding Generations Syllogism—52 of our 54 signers of the Declaration were undeniably born-again Christians. Their lives have been minutely examined, and it has been found that of the 54, 27 had a theological education, one translated and published a Bible, and another became the first president of the American Bible Society. Not only that, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, was also president of the American Bible Society. The evidence is clear—America was founded as a Christian nation. How can we replace those principles with “tolerance,” “political correct-ness,” and sex education in our schools and not expect to see the decline of morals and increase in violence, especially in schools, that we’re seeing today?
the evidence plainly indicates, Christianity was predominant in American civil government, law, and public life not only before, but also during and long after the framing and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
** You can condemn Bush for whatever you think are his flaws, as you surely would have done with Clinton who committed far worse acts of treason...but, you cannot change history , as much as we see many trying to do so.
When this nation has to stand to the last man against the onslaught of hate and all the inhumanities to man that we have witnessed elsewhere around the world, it is not the protester or the socialist or the athiest who will fight with you; it will likely be a Christian...
We have seen how the anti-Christian, the socialist and the evolutionist rushed to the aid of Katrina victims...Oh, you didn't see that? Neither did I...
The pilgrims came here as a commercial enterprise. They didnt believe in drinking water, instead beer was there favorite beverage. The first truly public house wasnt a town hall, or hospital or even a corn crib. It was a tavern. The pilgrims brought with them "adventurers" these were indentured servants that came here to make money. The fact that the Pilgrims were actually a minority on the mayflower is one lost too history books being taught.
You don't need a bloated hundred billion dollar Federal bureaucracy to enforce laws in building codes or rent....how does HHS or HUD enforce it now? Through locals. Or lawsuits.
Show me one type of service except defense that isn't or can't be handled by locals for locals.
Education and housing discrimination
I stand here today, as Governor of this sovereign State, and refuse to willingly submit to illegal usurpation of power by the Central Government. I claim today for all the people of the State of Alabama those rights reserved to them under the Constitution of the United States. Among those powers so reserved and claimed is the right of state authority in the operation of the public schools, colleges and Universities. My action does not constitute disobedience to legislative and constitutional provisions. It is not defiance – for defiance sake, but for the purpose of raising basic and fundamental constitutional questions. My action is raising a call for strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States as it was written – for a cessation of usurpation and abuses. My action seeks to avoid having state sovereignty sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Sometimes I wonder why people get upset when the feds do something that usurps local goverments right to discriminate
Just in case you dont get the significance of the above picture. Thats george Wallace using your argument to keep blacks out of white schools
So..... you NEED a huge federal bureaucracy to enforce federal non-discrimination laws? Why couldn't the locals or even law suits handle this?
Because a state government was racist in 1950 that means states will automatically revert to racism again without the savior federal bureaucracy?
Let's say we get rid of HUD and HHS for starters and the States hire up those employees to run their own local programs... but all current federal laws and regulations remain in force.
Powdunk Nowheresville, PA has an apartment complex whose owner didn't want to rent properties to people whose skin/culture/beliefs she disagreed with (*because as a black lesbian Wiccan she just despises white, southern, Baptists).
An arfcommer seeks to move in and is rejected. He sues. She loses in court because the law clearly states you can't discriminate on the basis of race/culture/religion.
How does the lack of a huge federal bureaucracy somehow doom this man? Does HUD have it's own enforcement police now????
OF COURSE ALL BUREAUCRACIES were justified on the basis of some 'problem' needing solving... my question is whether state or local governments couldn't do the same solving at a reduced cost and added benefit of making the decisions more local.
Cause when the locals pack an area and are newcomers they outvote the minority. So if you live in some small burb and 2000 krisnas move in do you want them to take over the school board and make tithing to krishna mandatory?
So as an arfcommer that desires to move into a black lesbian wiccan neihborhood. Would you rather have a goverment agency investigate the disrcimination or wait years and spend thousands and thousands of dollars while your case winds thru the court system. And if the entire town is black lesbian wiccans, exactly what local officials do you think will come to your aid? The black lesbian wiccan sherrif, mayor or maybe the black wiccan lesbian district attorney?
Maybe they will pull you over because only white southern baptists in their neiborhoods mean trouble. Sort of race profiling. Inappropriate comment removedETA typos and derogatory remarks
First of all, lest there be any misunderstanding, I myself am a minority ethnically, racially, and religiously, married to other minorities.
Secondly, I'm probably a better shot/tactician/strategist than any "88".
Thirdly, I fail to see how HHS and HUD currently enforce Federal law apart from the local and state police or FBI. How would it change things if our hypothetical arfcommer was discriminated against by a locale filled with black lesbian wiccans? He'd cry foul to the state authorities who would then make sure national standards are met.
I put the link in above so you could at least look at what HUD does. Here is something maybe you didnt know taken from the above site
In addition to its special focus on veterans who are homeless, HUDVET is also a source of information on other HUD and related Federal programs, such those to combat domestic violence, enhance community and economic development, aid runaway youth, and increase affordable housing for senior citizens and Americans with disabilities.
I've never claimed that federal bureaucracies don't do anything.... I'm only asking why the state couldn't take over those same tasks - even paying the same people to do their same work....
My whole goal is to return all government services (minus national defense, obviously) to as local a level as possible as this tends to allow for more democratic responsiveness of the 'civil servant' class as well as more civic involvement of the voter class....
That's all. I'm not saying don't help the poor, sick, blind, etc. just why does it HAVE to be done from a centralized location in down town DC?
I look at a federal budget of 2.77 TRILLION dollars.... and gasp. It's too big to be seriously parred back - by the Constitution party or ANY party.
Too many voters work directly for the federal government bureaucracy for any politician to survive shuttering any agency permanently.... and add in all the businesses that cater to those workers (making good money on fantastic hours, with accruing vacation days, all federal holidays, flex time, etc etc etc -not even social security, they get BETTER retirement accounts...) we're talking millions and millions of voters.
And rain or shine, those agencies grow, they never cut their budgets.
So they're only going to get bigger and more powerful and less responsive to 'we the people'. By their regulatory power an agency can overturn anything a state government does, crush any citizen in their maw.... empower whomever they favor or incarcerate, persecute, anyone (IRS)...
I've seen just as much evidence suggesting Washington was a Deist as there are for Christian. There are alleged comments, actions, etc documented for both arguments.