Posted on 08/26/2002 7:12:10 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
Conservatives Trump Liberals in Thirst for Federal Power
By Chuck Baldwin
Published 08. 23. 02 at 20:55 Sierra Time
The original vision of the Founding Fathers for these United States was one of limited power for the centralized or federal government. Instead, they envisioned a country comprised of strong state governments and much personal freedom. The limited nature of the federal government can be readily observed in the brevity of described duties in the U.S. Constitution and in the strong prohibitions against federal power contained in the Bill of Rights. For years, people have labored and voted under the assumption that liberals alone wanted to create a giant federal system, while conservatives believed in less federal authority and increased personal freedom. However, the Bush administration is fast dispelling such a misconceived notion. It is creating a behemoth federal system not even attempted by past Democratic administrations. Examples of this thirst for federal power by the Bush administration are manifold.
Earlier this month, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the administration's desire to build internment camps for U.S. citizens that the government would declare to be "enemy combatants." According to the plan, U.S. citizens could be held indefinitely without any constitutional protections or rights.
Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University said, "Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties."
I would dare say if former Attorney General Janet Reno had proposed such a plan, congressional Republicans would have immediately called emergency hearings and would have demanded her swift resignation. As it is, there is zero concern from Congress or the media, for that matter.
Another indication of the Bush administration's thirst for power is the way in which it seems willing to stifle lawful dissent. In a manner reminiscent of Bill Clinton's misuse of federal power, the Bush White House has apparently hired a Clinton law firm, Williams & Connolly, to investigate the personal life of Judicial Watch founder, Larry Klayman.
NewsMax.com broke the Klayman story on August 16. The report further stated, "In another indication that the Bush-Cheney legal operation may be borrowing a page from its White House predecessors, the State Department has hired Clinton impeachment lawyer Greg Craig to defend against a Judicial Watch lawsuit brought by United Nations whistle-blower Linda Shenwick."
Coupled with Bush's gargantuan Homeland Security Department, the Draconian USA Patriot Act, Ashcroft's proposed "pre-crimes" policy, and dozens of other dictatorial promulgations, these actions make it very clear that Republicans are capable of even trumping Democrats in their thirst for federal power.
© Chuck Baldwin
So true. If Democrats tried what Bush is doing, there would be protests at every corner. As it is, the nation is told it's for 'Homeland Security' and except for a few accept the changes willingly and with open arms
Doubt that... BARF ALERT.
So says the paranoid nutbag Klayman. If you choose to believe Judicial Watch's goofy press releases, then you'll believe anything.
Ain't that the truth!
The far-right fringe has ALWAYS fought with conservatives. The stupid asses think they're advancing their cause by sitting out an election so that Democrats can win.
This article is a rubber ball. Both parties are included to display a journalistic even-handedness but ultimately reveals nothing but contempt for both. Baldwin uses the relativity between a past corrupt administration and the incumbant to display current reactionary overzealousness following a devastating militaristic attack that left all of us with our mouths wide open and 3000 civilians dead.
Personal corruption vs. a Baldwin described incumbant thurst for power is a spin you should be able to decypher. Neither party is clean, but the personal corruption factor surfaced on the Dems by displaying lockstep loyalty to a single politcal party and individual over the sworn loyalty to the nation. The Repubs haven't had to make that decision in public yet.
Who's the badguy??? The presstitutes inability to inform the public without invoking a political favorite has left us divided and controlled. So for whatever reason, Chuck Baldwin is playing soft(rubber)ball here for political points and blames everybody including a hint at reporter ineptitude.
The fringe tends to be over-represented on FR.
As to November or 2004, neither you nor anyone else can predict with any level of comfort what's going to happen. Another terrorist attack, or clear evidence of Iraq-al Qaeda complicity, and your prognosis goes out the window.
As a member of the far right fringe, I can certainly speak for myself, but by no means is this a reflection on the thinking of the entire "fringe," if you will.
Anyhow, as far as I'm concerned, the difference between Big Government Rs and Big Government Ds is negligible; the Ds usually want to control my money a bit more, and the Rs want to control my personal life. Fine.
But it's clear that things are headed in the wrong direction now, as far as liberties and rights go--I think nearly everyone here would agree with that. That said, given the attitude of most people in this country, this trend is not likely to change in the near future. People, as a rule, don't like responsibility, and so they are content with government becoming bigger and more intrusive into their personal lives.
I'm of the opinion, though, that there is, someplace off in the distance, a "breaking point," at which people will become fed up with incessant government intrusion. As it is right now, we're not free, so the faster we reach that breaking point, the better we'll be. I think it's better to suffer greatly for a shorter period of time than languish in a pseudo-free existance for an indefinite period of time.
I said all of this to say, that from my position on the far right, a D being elected certainly isn't a tragedy; in fact, it might be a step in the right direction to achieving the ultimate goal.
"Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things. It is the continuing revolution of the marketplace. It is the understanding that allows us to recognize shortcomings and seek solutions. It is the right to put forth an idea, scoffed at by the experts, and watch it catch fire among the people. It is the right to dream--to follow your dream or stick to your conscience, even if you're the only one in a sea of doubters."
--Ronald Reagan
No.... Actually I don't like any of these things but they may be necessary to fight an expanding war frontier. I just think that if the democrats were in power they would have done everything 10 times worse. Democrats do not protect rights... they keep slaves. And, democrats don't know how to win wars because they can't think straight. That's why they are domocrats. Only a person with a poor understanding of history and the world becomes a democrat. You can't win wars when you can't be honest with yourself. Democrats are born liars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.