Posted: 1/5/2004 8:49:28 AM EDT
|
Principle Before Party By Tom DeWeese from www.eco.freedom.org/el/20040101/deweese.shtml Fifty years ago, the modern movement to defend the principles of liberty, outlined in the United States Constitution, began. That was when conservatives and libertarians began to stand up to those who advocated government as the answer to the basic questions of life, as opposed to individual responsibility. The new conservatives advocated individual freedom, free markets, entrepreneurship, and limited government intervention into the everyday lives of American families. At the time, the Republican Party was the best vehicle for promoting the ideals of the new movement. It was the party of Robert Taft and, later, Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan. It was the Party that preached the gospel of limited government and the Judeo/Christian ideals that are the foundation of Western Culture. The problem was that the Republican Party was also the home of Nelson Rockefeller and the Eastern Establishment elite, who advocated their own plans for a welfare state, much like that of the Democrats, only on a slower, smaller basis. They liked the benefits of the money business could provide, but wanted to use government to keep it in check. It was also a handy tool to control the competition. So a titanic battle between ideologies began for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Political parties are simply tools for winning elections. The kind of candidates they produce and the policies they advocate are a product of those in control. Conservatives in the middle of the Twentieth Century understood this. They took up the battle cry of "principle before party" and then set out to make sure the Republican Party was true to conservative principles. However, somewhere along the way, conservative principles got watered down with "Republican" policies. The once-mighty conservative grassroots activists have been reduced to taken-for-granted pawns, warned to speak no evil of a fellow Republican. Above all, don't be so childish as to "stand for principle." Do so at the risk of finding the label "extremist" permanently tattooed to your name. We are warned that the alternative to the Republicans are the devil Democrats, and you know what that means! Big government. Uncontrolled spending. Higher taxes. Greater regulations on business. Assaults on family values. In fear, we comply. Conservatives shuffle their feet, look down at the floor, bleat the party line, accept the "compromises," and acknowledge their fate on the backbenches. Republicans now have a new agenda. It started with the label of the undefined "compassionate conservatism." Now, the compassionate Republican Administration has ventured on a new path called "National Greatness" with the express purpose of creating an American empire which seeks to re-draw the map of the Middle East and use American might to force American ideals on others. They believe force should not just be limited to the defense of our country. According to this new policy, big government isn't bad, it just depends on who is running it. "We can make government great for the American people as long as we're in charge" goes the Party line. Three years of complete Republican rule have given us a clear understanding of its meaning. Close inspection will show that this is not your father's GOP. And it's not conservative! On the domestic front, the Republican Party just forced the passage of a Medicare bill that will cost $7 trillion of unfunded entitlement. According to reports coming from Capitol Hill, Republican leadership in Congress applied unprecedented pressure on GOP members to get it passed, so the President would have a major campaign issue in his pocket. According to Congressman Nick Smith of Michigan, there were threats and intimidation for him to swallow his convictions that the bill was bad for America. He was threatened in midnight appeals from House Speaker Dennis Hastert that, should he vote against the bill, his son, now running for Smith's seat, would never get elected. Rep. Tom Feeney of Florida, after resisting phone calls from President Bush, was told that a no vote would delay his ascent to House leadership by three more years. In the end, only 25 Republicans stood for the conservative principle that government shouldn't be in the healthcare business and voted against the Medicare bill. Big government just got a whole lot bigger, under Republican rule. Remember 1994, when the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives? One major battle cry was their determination to abolish the Department of Education. Why? The federal government has no business being involved in education, which should be controlled at the local level. That's a point of fact in the Constitution, and a conservative principle. Today, under Republican control, the issue is simply no longer on the agenda. The Bush Administration, under the "No Child Left Behind" Act, has created more regulations and more funding for federally controlled curriculum than ever before. The Act itself was basically written by Ted Kennedy. No-Child-Left-Behind is simply the permanent solidification of the failed policies of Goals 2000, School to Work and the Workforce Development Act. As a result, American education is now completely controlled from Washington. The federal education bureaucracy just got a whole lot more powerful, under Republican rule. Sustainable Development is the official policy of the Bush Administration. It is a leftover from Bill Clinton and could have been eliminated in preference to reestablishing our Constitutional form of representative government, in which the local town councils and county commissioners are empowered to decide local issues. President Bush chose not to take that action. Instead, he chose Sustainable Development, a top-down federal zoning approach designed to restructure American communities to fit the dictates of the United Nations' Agenda 21. As a result of Sustainable Development policies, private, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with specific political agendas are now in (partnership) with elected officials, guiding policy from a central blueprint. As once-guaranteed rights under a rule of law are now pulled and stretched to fit the current fad policy, homeowners are no longer confident that their property is secure from new regulations. There is fear that, at any time, their investment (indeed, their home) could suddenly be taken at the whim of newly created Sustainable policy. Belief in the American dream is dying, under Republican rule. Christianity, the very foundation of Western culture, is being systematically eliminated from the United States. We've witnessed the incredible sight of a monument of the Ten Commandments being physically removed from the Alabama Supreme Court at the edict of a federal judge. Both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions clearly state that the federal government has no jurisdiction in the case. Not only has the Bush Administration stood by and let it happen, it is now considering the prosecutor in the case for a federal judgeship. As a result of that case, actions to remove any sign of the Christian religion from public places have quickened in pace. God is being removed from America, under Republican rule. Our nation is being attacked by fanatical terrorists and we must defend against them. We have the U.S. Military, the FBI, the CIA, State and local police. It's well defined that their job is to defend our borders, coastline, airspace and cities from threats, both inside and out of our borders. Why is a massive new agency, armed with the power to intrude into our homes without a search warrant, necessary? Cont. |
|
Does the reader remember hearing the term "Homeland Security" prior to September 11, 2001? Where did the term come from? Familiar terms for defending our borders have always been national defense, or national security. Where did the term "Homeland" come from? It seems the term has been rattling around the United Nations for some time. And, in fact, in 2000, at the U.N.'s Millennium Summit, attended by 179 world leaders, all nations present agreed to adopt, without reservation, recommendations for Homeland Security. It was all contained in a document called the Brahimi Report. According to researcher Joan Peros, several paragraphs in the section on Civilian Police are of special note. It calls for member states to increase their numbers of civilian police and to reform and restructure local police forces, so they can be used in U.N. peace operations. It calls for joint exercises and regional training partnerships. Paragraph 124 calls for Member States to designate a single point of contact within their government structures to be responsible for coordinating and managing the provisions of police personnel. In compliance, the United States set up its single point of contact: The Department of Homeland Security. By the way, the German translation of the phrase "Homeland Security" is "Schutz Staffel." The Nazis shortened it to "SS." A massive, intrusive cabinet-level agency with power beyond the wildest dreams of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson combined has just been established, under Republican rule. The Bush administration put our country back into UNESCO. The Bush Administration is moving forward with plans to put illegal aliens on our already-bankrupt Social Security system. Indeed, it wants a full amnesty granted to millions of outlaw aliens who disregarded our rule of law just to sneak in here. Conservatives, Libertarians, Americans who believe that the Constitution was and is the best document yet devised to protect human liberty, it's time to come out of your trance, and begin anew the fight for "principle before party." It is not wrong for you to oppose these actions. It is not wrong to speak ill of a Party that has lost its way. It is not treason to oppose these outrageous excesses of the Republican Party. Indeed, it may be treason if you do not. Tom DeWeese is the president of the American Policy Center and publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report, a monthly public affairs newsletter. |
|
This guy is looking a little too deep into a name. The reason we couldn't use national security is that the agency already existed and was mandated to operate beyond our borders only. So they picked "homeland security", big deal. Would "department of internal security" be better, although that might conflict with the department of the interior. I don't like the whole patriot act idea, but trying to say Bush chose "homeland security" to be like the Nazi SS is a little extreme. The patriot act would be fine if it was limited to citizens and non-citizens that are recent immigrants/tourists from high threat nations. But, that would be racial profiling, so they can't do that even though it makes sense. |
|
Quoted: I don't like the whole patriot act idea, but trying to say Bush chose "homeland security" to be like the Nazi SS is a little extreme. Uhh...you missed it. Nowhere did the article say Bush named it to "be like the nazis," and it wasn't about the patriot act...it wasn't even mentioned. Scott |
|
When will people figure out there isn't a rat's ass difference betweent the two parties? The republicans tout anti abortion laws they can't deliver in substance, family values and faith based initiatives that are unconstitutional and increased military spending which they do deliver. Republicans used to be the party of balanced budgets and limited government and the democrats were the big spenders. Now the democrats preach balanced budget. The democrats used to be big spenders on domestic programs and now the republicans spend big bucks on Iraq and Afghanistan. And its not like we've spent all this money and the terrorist threat is diminished, at least not according to the Bush administration. The terrorist threat is as bad or worse than ever. The democrats aren't better, they don't know what to do... about anything. They just know they are different from republicans, but they can't actually say how. Does it really make a lot of difference who's hand is in your pocket lifting your wallet? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I don't like the whole patriot act idea, but trying to say Bush chose "homeland security" to be like the Nazi SS is a little extreme. Uhh...you missed it. Nowhere did the article say Bush named it to "be like the nazis," and it wasn't about the patriot act...it wasn't even mentioned. Scott The article complains about big government. Only the second half is actually big government in my view, the first half is just complaining about spending too much. Every historic democracy has failed, usually due to over spending by all political groups basically buying votes. There is no answer to the spending problem since any politician stating they are going to end government subsidy programs will never get the votes from those being subsidized. The second half deals with the patriot act and the dept of homeland security. This is bigger government in my view since the government is actually intruding on citizens and not just blowing money. Our nation is being attacked by fanatical terrorists and we must defend against them. We have the U.S. Military, the FBI, the CIA, State and local police. It's well defined that their job is to defend our borders, coastline, airspace and cities from threats, both inside and out of our borders. Why is a massive new agency, armed with the power to intrude into our homes without a search warrant, necessary? This power to intrude into our homes is the patriot act. The US military, and CIA have no jurisdiction within the borders of the USA. The FBI, State, and local police have no access to intelligence information, which is usually obtained by methods illegal within the US. So, a new department capable of using "illegally" gathered intelligence to stop terrorism seems logical. But, the patriot act gives them too much power. By the way, the German translation of the phrase "Homeland Security" is "Schutz Staffel." The Nazis shortened it to "SS." A massive, intrusive cabinet-level agency with power beyond the wildest dreams of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson combined has just been established, under Republican rule. This is called spin. He is stating the republicans created an SS type agency, using the name only as comparison. The spending is inevitable, and will lead to our republic's downfall. The patriot act, i.e. the department of homeland security being unrestricted, is the real problem as it gives those in power the ability to theoretically control the opposition and become a de facto dictatorship. This is currently occurring in Russia, and the most notable historic comparison occurred in the republic of Rome when Caesar was able to manipulate the senate into making him emperor. |
|
Quoted: This is called spin. I thought it was an [i]aside[/i] merely noting the association. The patriot act, i.e. the department of homeland security being unrestricted, is the real problem as it gives those in power the ability to theoretically control the opposition No, that's campaign finance reform...well maybe it's both. More in the realm of CFR for now, but I could see the PA being abused to silence the opposition in the future. I think we largely agree. fwiw Scott |