Oppose Bush's Power Grab

King Features Syndicate ^ | 09/09/02 | Charley Reese

[GalvestonBeachcomber]

Americans who value the Constitution should stand with Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and oppose George Bush's attempted power grab in conjunction with establishing a Department of Homeland Security.

The Bushies are trying to frame the debate as either protecting bureaucracy or providing security for Americans. In fact, the debate is about preventing an authoritarian president from sacrificing the Constitution in the name of providing security.

Let me remind you that those who prefer security to freedom will lose both.

Bush wants to be able to disregard labor contracts and civil-service rules, as well as move money within the department as he pleases. He claims that this is necessary for national security or, to use his current Orwellian phrase, homeland security.

Bull.

The Constitution is quite clear. Congress has sole authority to write the laws, including the civil-service laws and those involving labor contracts. Congress has the sole authority to authorize and appropriate money. So what Mr. Bush wants is to disregard the Constitution and bully Congress into ceding its constitutional authority to the executive branch. The mopes in the House have already done that, but a few of the Democrats in the Senate are resisting it.

We have had ignorant men occupy the presidency several times, but none, I think, as ignorant of the Constitution and as disinclined toward freedom as George Bush.

He made a Freudian slip one day in an offhand remark to the press. He said, "I think Americans ought to be allowed to express their opinions." Ought to be allowed? Ought to be allowed? Hey, Mr. President, read the First Amendment. We have the God-given right to express our opinions, whether you and your government think we should be "allowed" to do so or not. Allowed my foot.

The whole idea of this Department of Homeland Security is silly anyway. Anyone who thinks that sweeping thousands of employees from where they are now into one department is going to improve anything doesn't know much about government. I've lived through a government reorganization, and it results in more employees and less efficiency.

Besides, the two key organizations necessary for homeland security — the FBI and the CIA — are excluded and will remain where they are. That doesn't make sense, frankly, though consolidating the Border Patrol and Customs certainly does. Just don't expect it to be a panacea. It will take months and months to sort it all out after the legislation creates it.

But don't buy this hokum that unless Bush can ride roughshod over the rights of federal employees and ignore the separation of powers, he can't protect the American people. He can't anyway, and this is just another example of his imperial mind-set.

Civil-service laws were enacted to protect federal employees from being abused by politicians who would fire and transfer them to make room for patronage jobs or extort campaign contributions from them. Nothing that involves national security necessitates those protections being removed.

It's odd that Mr. Bush, unable to face the truth that our own Middle East policy is responsible for Sept. 11, would claim that terrorists hate us because we are free. The greatest threat to American freedom today is not Osama bin Laden but George W. Bush, who, if he is even aware of its existence, seems to think the Constitution is just an antiquated piece of parchment that belongs in a museum.

Every abuse of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this and the previous century has been done in the name of security. It is the common excuse of those who prefer power to freedom.

[verity]

What claptrap!

[hchutch]

Paleo-conservatism sounds like something that should be studied by paleontologists.

Neo-conservative and PROUD OF IT!!!

[rdb3]

This is what it all comes down to for Charlie and his friends on the far-and-idiotic right.

There. That's better.

[roses of sharon]

What drama queens you all are!

[rdb3]

Charlie agrees with the far right AND the far left.

The far-right and far-left overlap! Neither understands where the boundaries are as long as their tactics justify what they believe (which more and more are the exact same thing).

If I say something in which someone like Hillary! or Kluxer Byrd would support, I need to step back and reevaluate my position.

[MissAmericanPie]

"Homeland Security" is pretty vague as to what it's goals are, so far I understand it to be cramming all the incompetence under one umbrella. I have no problem with Bush being able to hire and fire, Federal employee protections as far as I can see means a lout can't be fired and is imboldened to sabotage the administration in power's agenda. I wouldn't trust this ability in Clintons hands.

So, to me, Homeland Security is something quickly thrown together as evidence of the administration "doing something" about terrorism, while actually not really doing anything about terrorism. There will never be "Homeland Security" until people from terrorist nations are banned from coming here.

[Celtman]

Make no mistake: Bush is NOT a conservative.

      From reading postings, too many conservatives do make that very mistake.  As I recall, Bush 41 was generally recognized as a liberal until Ronald Reagan designated him as his running mate.  Suddenly, overnight, the chameleon changed its colors, and began speaking as a conservative, but still doing as a liberal. 
      Bush 43 is following the pattern.  On his last day in office, Clinton issued a massive set of executive orders.  When G.W. took office he thought it best to review these orders instead of recinding them.  Since then, he has recinded - how many?
      Both major parties have been hijacked by globalist liberals!  The only difference is that Democrats are a little more honest about it.  The Republican Party is the best chance to restore Constitutional conservatism, but not as long as gullible conservatives continue to nominate wolves in sheep's clothing.

[NMC EXP]

As a result of your insecurity and low self esteem you become a keyboard Walter Mitty. Full of bluster and bravado in a futile attempt to bolster your flaccid ego.

An easy thing to do in the world of 1's and 0's. I suspect you are not at all confrontational during eyeball to eyeball debates in the meat world.

Assuming you engage in such debates.

Regards

J.R.

[AmishDude]

And you are . . . ?

And your point is . . . ?

No, really, I forget, what the subject was that you are trying to change?

[rockfish59]

Just for kids!
(Click here)

You in there, Robert?