Joe Giganti
Thunderous applause for liberty's death
By Joe Giganti
When I read the headline, "Bush seeks to federalize emergencies," on a recent column in The Washington Times by Bill Sammon, I knew I would have to keep my heartburn medicine close at hand.
I cannot begin with a strong enough statement other than this: This article, especially President Bush's quotes, should send chills straight to your very bones. The story reports — in rather triumphant language — President Bush's plan to federalize the response to any major "threat" or problem facing the states in our republic; be it the threat of terrorism, disease, severe weather or the ominous catch-all of "other scenarios."
I am dumbfounded at the lack of outcry — other than from the rather inconsistent and incredible ACLU — over this latest development. I scanned the wire services and major conservative websites, and nothing, nada. No one seems to think this is bad enough to warrant even a press release cautioning restraint on the part of the president and his administration. Ironically, the ACLU sounds more like a right-wing organization than most self-proclaimed "conservative" organizations have lately.
The ACLU's Timothy Edgar told Sammon, "Using the military in domestic law enforcement is generally a very bad idea...I'm afraid that it will have unforeseen consequences for civil liberties." He went on to state, "The Posse Comitatus Act is sometimes criticized as some sort of obscure, centuries-old law...But you know, most of our liberties are centuries old. So that would be like saying the Bill of Rights is obscure and old."
The United States of America is a constitutional republic founded on the premise that our rights are inalienable and granted to us, not by man, but by our Creator. A key component to the success of our form of government is the recognition of and respect for state's rights. If allowed to become law, Bush's proposal would erode the very foundation of this premise by usurping the authority and sovereignty of the state and its chief executive, the governor.
To some, I may sound too much like Chicken Little. If so, I will be glad to admit it when I am proven wrong. Until then, I welcome anyone who can explain to me how this or ANY administration could justify putting the Department of Defense (formerly known as the War Department) in charge of responding to natural — as in caused by nature, not Al Qaeda — disasters. This is beyond absurd. What's next, scrambling F-16s because a suspicious cumulus cloud formation has entered restricted airspace over Washington, D.C.?
Unfortunately, there has been a slow but steady movement in this direction for several years, and few have been willing to recognize or warn against it. Somewhere along the way, the Republican Party leadership realized they no longer needed to be good or bastions of the conservative ideology, but could get away with being "less bad" than their Democratic counterparts and still maintain the electorate's support. If we are willing to accept second best, than second best is all we will achieve — and that is not good enough.
To borrow a phrase from a good friend, this latest proposal smacks of "empire building." It is ludicrous that the American people would accept this proposition from any president — Republican, Democrat, Independent or Martian — but so far...silence.
So what is the overarching philosophy behind President Bush's proposal? According to him, "It's very important for us as we look at the lessons of Katrina to think about other scenarios that might require a well-planned, significant federal response — right off the bat — to provide stability."
At first reading, I did a double take, believing such a statement could only come from the likes of former President Clinton. This led me to ponder the idea of proposing a new litmus test to help solve the recent schizophrenic slumber on the part of many conservatives. Let's call it "WWCDIIWC": What Would Conservatives Do If It Were Clinton? The answer is clear. Conservatives leaders would be standing on the tops of tables demanding his citizenship be stripped. But instead, silence.
Rather than detailing the multitude of pesky historical events that serve as reminders that unchecked growth of a centralized federal government's power has almost always resulted in the loss of liberty and freedom, I offer Generation Apathy the following pop culture reference from the last Star Wars film:
Other leaders in the conservative movement have seemingly been in hibernation over the past few years as much of this incremental "empire building" has occurred, so it is not particularly surprising that their response has been so tepid. But what leaves me particularly distraught is the near silence from my friends, contemporaries and other men and women of principle.
Instead of rising to meet this challenge, there is tokenistic hand wringing, a fleeting comment here or there, but no real effort to take back that which is rightfully ours.
Much of this problem rests squarely on our own shoulders. As a people, we have become too complacent in our roles as citizens. But the republic need not die this way. There is hope that we can make good on the words of Ronald Reagan when he said, "...America's greatest chapter is still to be written, for the best is yet to come." Our hope lies in the premise that as a people, Americans will address the root cause of the crisis we face, which is the passive role we have assumed in our citizenship. To be a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," we must honor our obligation to be proactively involved in the day-to-day affairs of our country, rather than to leave these critical decisions to an elite whose agenda seldom has our best interests at heart.
If I — or any of my contemporaries — died today, we would do so having enjoyed some measure of the freedom unique to the experience of having been an American. A freedom granted to us by God, preserved by the blood of heroes and entrusted to our eternal vigilance. But my heart sinks when I think of my children and the generations to come who will never know that freedom; who will never know the truth of what a constitutional republic is, and who will pay for our failures. I would rather die on the field of battle seeking to preserve this republic, than to live and see that great tragedy unfold.
© Joe Giganti
When I read the headline, "Bush seeks to federalize emergencies," on a recent column in The Washington Times by Bill Sammon, I knew I would have to keep my heartburn medicine close at hand.
I cannot begin with a strong enough statement other than this: This article, especially President Bush's quotes, should send chills straight to your very bones. The story reports — in rather triumphant language — President Bush's plan to federalize the response to any major "threat" or problem facing the states in our republic; be it the threat of terrorism, disease, severe weather or the ominous catch-all of "other scenarios."
I am dumbfounded at the lack of outcry — other than from the rather inconsistent and incredible ACLU — over this latest development. I scanned the wire services and major conservative websites, and nothing, nada. No one seems to think this is bad enough to warrant even a press release cautioning restraint on the part of the president and his administration. Ironically, the ACLU sounds more like a right-wing organization than most self-proclaimed "conservative" organizations have lately.
The ACLU's Timothy Edgar told Sammon, "Using the military in domestic law enforcement is generally a very bad idea...I'm afraid that it will have unforeseen consequences for civil liberties." He went on to state, "The Posse Comitatus Act is sometimes criticized as some sort of obscure, centuries-old law...But you know, most of our liberties are centuries old. So that would be like saying the Bill of Rights is obscure and old."
The United States of America is a constitutional republic founded on the premise that our rights are inalienable and granted to us, not by man, but by our Creator. A key component to the success of our form of government is the recognition of and respect for state's rights. If allowed to become law, Bush's proposal would erode the very foundation of this premise by usurping the authority and sovereignty of the state and its chief executive, the governor.
To some, I may sound too much like Chicken Little. If so, I will be glad to admit it when I am proven wrong. Until then, I welcome anyone who can explain to me how this or ANY administration could justify putting the Department of Defense (formerly known as the War Department) in charge of responding to natural — as in caused by nature, not Al Qaeda — disasters. This is beyond absurd. What's next, scrambling F-16s because a suspicious cumulus cloud formation has entered restricted airspace over Washington, D.C.?
Unfortunately, there has been a slow but steady movement in this direction for several years, and few have been willing to recognize or warn against it. Somewhere along the way, the Republican Party leadership realized they no longer needed to be good or bastions of the conservative ideology, but could get away with being "less bad" than their Democratic counterparts and still maintain the electorate's support. If we are willing to accept second best, than second best is all we will achieve — and that is not good enough.
To borrow a phrase from a good friend, this latest proposal smacks of "empire building." It is ludicrous that the American people would accept this proposition from any president — Republican, Democrat, Independent or Martian — but so far...silence.
So what is the overarching philosophy behind President Bush's proposal? According to him, "It's very important for us as we look at the lessons of Katrina to think about other scenarios that might require a well-planned, significant federal response — right off the bat — to provide stability."
At first reading, I did a double take, believing such a statement could only come from the likes of former President Clinton. This led me to ponder the idea of proposing a new litmus test to help solve the recent schizophrenic slumber on the part of many conservatives. Let's call it "WWCDIIWC": What Would Conservatives Do If It Were Clinton? The answer is clear. Conservatives leaders would be standing on the tops of tables demanding his citizenship be stripped. But instead, silence.
Rather than detailing the multitude of pesky historical events that serve as reminders that unchecked growth of a centralized federal government's power has almost always resulted in the loss of liberty and freedom, I offer Generation Apathy the following pop culture reference from the last Star Wars film:
-
PALPATINE: In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society, which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.
(There is a loud, sustained cheer from the Senate. Bail Organa and Padme sit, dumbfounded.)
PALPATINE: An empire that will continue to be ruled by this august body, and a sovereign ruler chosen for life . . .
(The Senate cheers again. Bail and Padme are devastated. Padme begins to cry.)
PALPATINE: An empire ruled by the majority . . . Ruled by a new constitution . . .
(The Senate applauds.)
PADME: So this is how liberty dies, to the sound of thunderous applause . . .
Other leaders in the conservative movement have seemingly been in hibernation over the past few years as much of this incremental "empire building" has occurred, so it is not particularly surprising that their response has been so tepid. But what leaves me particularly distraught is the near silence from my friends, contemporaries and other men and women of principle.
Instead of rising to meet this challenge, there is tokenistic hand wringing, a fleeting comment here or there, but no real effort to take back that which is rightfully ours.
Much of this problem rests squarely on our own shoulders. As a people, we have become too complacent in our roles as citizens. But the republic need not die this way. There is hope that we can make good on the words of Ronald Reagan when he said, "...America's greatest chapter is still to be written, for the best is yet to come." Our hope lies in the premise that as a people, Americans will address the root cause of the crisis we face, which is the passive role we have assumed in our citizenship. To be a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," we must honor our obligation to be proactively involved in the day-to-day affairs of our country, rather than to leave these critical decisions to an elite whose agenda seldom has our best interests at heart.
If I — or any of my contemporaries — died today, we would do so having enjoyed some measure of the freedom unique to the experience of having been an American. A freedom granted to us by God, preserved by the blood of heroes and entrusted to our eternal vigilance. But my heart sinks when I think of my children and the generations to come who will never know that freedom; who will never know the truth of what a constitutional republic is, and who will pay for our failures. I would rather die on the field of battle seeking to preserve this republic, than to live and see that great tragedy unfold.
© Joe Giganti
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
