May 31, 2007
Notes From The Fringe
I have this one friend who is somewhere beyond Libertarian. In fact he would probably make most of the Libertarian party seem downright authoritarian by comparison. Yes, he moved to New Hampshire shortly after the start of the Free State Project. I applaud and share his commitment to the cause of Liberty. I don't however share his tendency toward paranoia when it comes to virtually EVERYTHING done by the government.
Case in point. Today he sent me - and his entire email list (and I love being on his email list) this link. It's to a blog called "Another Day in the Empire." And I don't think it has anything to do with protecting the Death Star from the Rebellion. (Though I haven't read the whole site so I can't be sure.) The post in question today is "Bush Pens Dictatorship Directive, Few Notice." and it includes this neat graphic (which depicts George Bush looking like a Sith Lord wielding the awesome power of the Dark Side of the Force).
The post is hyperventilating about the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which the author believes is really just a pretext for Bush to assume extra constitutional authority under the pretext of a national emergency.
In short, Bush may now declare himself absolute ruler at any moment and Congress can like it or lump it.This is what the document actually says (emphasis added):
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;It further states (emphasis added):
Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.I read through the entire document and here is my common sense rational summary. The document assumes an event of significant proportion to severely impact the function of government. (Think of what Katrina did to the government of New Orleans on a national scale). It then lays out the steps that will be taken to plan for such an event and to ensure the resources are available to continue the essential functions of the Executive Branch of the federal government during such a crisis. As a part of this process the Executive Branch will take steps to ensure that the plans and resources they put in place will work with the plans and resources put in place by the Legislative and Judicial Branches. If we do indeed have three co-equal branches of government, and we want them to continue to work as such in time of crisis, it seems perfectly rational, logical and sane that they would "coordinate" their respective emergency plans to do just that.
If Bush, at the behest of "the World Economic Forum, the club of billionaires and transnational corporations that meet annually in Davos," were plotting to be absolute ruler why would he coordinate with the other branches let alone acknowledge that "each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity?" Why wouldn't he just instruct his branch of the government to come up with a continuity plan that assumes the other branches no longer exist? Wouldn't that be simpler?
It is worth noting that this executive order is not some great new innovation of the Bush NeoCon autocracy in waiting. Down near the bottom of the document we find:
Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.And I must say compared to the Bush version, our previous president was a piker when it came to telling us what was in the plan.
I will give this citizen of the Empire credit for one thing. He didn't go so far as to predict that once the continuity plan was in place and fully coordinated the Ilumiinati/NeoCon/BushCo empire would then cause the triggering emergency. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the though it.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:00 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
1
A few relevant quotes from an old friend:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Man is not free unless government is limited.
Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.
Status quo, you know, is Latin for 'the mess we're in'.
The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
- Ronald Reagan
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Man is not free unless government is limited.
Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.
Status quo, you know, is Latin for 'the mess we're in'.
The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
- Ronald Reagan
Posted by: YouKnowWho at May 31, 2007 11:14 AM (gdnZz)
2
Very nice quotes. I agree with them all.
I just don't see the executive branch putting a catastrophe plan in place that will keep government functioning - in coordination with the other branches - as a threat to freedom.
Quite to the contrary - I think the absence of such a plan in the event of a catastrophe is a far greater threat.
I just don't see the executive branch putting a catastrophe plan in place that will keep government functioning - in coordination with the other branches - as a threat to freedom.
Quite to the contrary - I think the absence of such a plan in the event of a catastrophe is a far greater threat.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at May 31, 2007 12:36 PM (Z3kjO)
3
Well written, excellent research (you saved me the time of telling you all this in the comment) and great summation.
BTW, I feel sorry for your friend. Each year, for the past 5 years, NH has increasingly passed legislation that is socialist in spirit, tone and language. And I know this because it's my job to track legislation from a select number of states, NH being one of them. HA! All that money on a move wasted away. All that energy on focusing on the federal government wasted away. What idiots!
BTW, I feel sorry for your friend. Each year, for the past 5 years, NH has increasingly passed legislation that is socialist in spirit, tone and language. And I know this because it's my job to track legislation from a select number of states, NH being one of them. HA! All that money on a move wasted away. All that energy on focusing on the federal government wasted away. What idiots!
Posted by: michele at June 01, 2007 06:29 PM (Icq7f)
4
Michele,
I agree with your assessment of the Free State Project. They clearly don't have the numbers to make a serious impact even in a small state like New Hampshire. I do want to say that I do not know for certain that my friend is an official participant in the project or that the Free State Project had anything to do with his moving to NH - though he clearly shares their philosophy.
I agree with your assessment of the Free State Project. They clearly don't have the numbers to make a serious impact even in a small state like New Hampshire. I do want to say that I do not know for certain that my friend is an official participant in the project or that the Free State Project had anything to do with his moving to NH - though he clearly shares their philosophy.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 02, 2007 07:13 AM (Z3kjO)
5
I've been watching this issue pretty closely... Time will tell. Let's revisit it in 3-5 years, which is a more realistic timeframe to gauge the impact a political movement of this nature. The socialists/collectivists/statists didn't take over a majority of the Northeast overnight, nor did they take over the Republican Party in a week. Can you say Prescription Drug Plan? No Child Left Behind?
In NH, the influx of socialists from New York, Mass, Connecticut and elsewhere for the past few decades will take some time to overcome. The relatively few Free-staters in NH so far have actually had a significant impact in getting a smoking ban rejected in the state house last year, preventing a seat belt law this year, etc. They are having a larger impact here than you think. Many of them have turned out to be super-activists, influencing significant numbers of people around them. Some, like me are for small gov't, while others are more anarchist in nature. They often bolster robust pro-liberty groups which were already here before the FSP existed. Many similar groups are forming here every day.
The efforts of FSP members surely weren't helped here, when in last year's election, many good, liberty-oriented republicans were swept from office in the anti-Bush, anti-war backlash. I'm sure that this will be reversed the next time around, once the voters realize what they voted for. Until then, they will be on the defense, rather than the offense.
Live Free or Die still means something in New Hampshire.
In NH, the influx of socialists from New York, Mass, Connecticut and elsewhere for the past few decades will take some time to overcome. The relatively few Free-staters in NH so far have actually had a significant impact in getting a smoking ban rejected in the state house last year, preventing a seat belt law this year, etc. They are having a larger impact here than you think. Many of them have turned out to be super-activists, influencing significant numbers of people around them. Some, like me are for small gov't, while others are more anarchist in nature. They often bolster robust pro-liberty groups which were already here before the FSP existed. Many similar groups are forming here every day.
The efforts of FSP members surely weren't helped here, when in last year's election, many good, liberty-oriented republicans were swept from office in the anti-Bush, anti-war backlash. I'm sure that this will be reversed the next time around, once the voters realize what they voted for. Until then, they will be on the defense, rather than the offense.
Live Free or Die still means something in New Hampshire.
Posted by: Wayne at June 07, 2007 02:50 AM (gdnZz)
Posted by: Wayne at June 07, 2007 03:05 AM (gdnZz)
7
Wayne,
Assume for a moment a major catastrophe that cripples the infrastructure of the federal government. Assume that each co-equal branch of the federal government had plans in place to assure its own continued function in such a crisis.
Would you rather that A) Their physical locations, communications resources and operational plans etc. left them unable to work together" or B) Their physical locations, communications resources and operational plans etc. allowed them to communicate and continue to work together cooperatively and continue to function as checks and balances?
Nothing in that document says the President is going to take over the function of the entire government. It says that the Executive Branch will take the lead in making sure that the continuity plans of the individual branches are compatible.
From the point of view of protecting Liberty, making sure the Congress or the Courts, or the Executive can step in and stop one of the other branches from using a crisis as cover for grabbing absolute authority is a good thing.
P.S. Don't smoke and buckle your seat belt - I'd much rather have you living Free than the alternative.
Assume for a moment a major catastrophe that cripples the infrastructure of the federal government. Assume that each co-equal branch of the federal government had plans in place to assure its own continued function in such a crisis.
Would you rather that A) Their physical locations, communications resources and operational plans etc. left them unable to work together" or B) Their physical locations, communications resources and operational plans etc. allowed them to communicate and continue to work together cooperatively and continue to function as checks and balances?
Nothing in that document says the President is going to take over the function of the entire government. It says that the Executive Branch will take the lead in making sure that the continuity plans of the individual branches are compatible.
From the point of view of protecting Liberty, making sure the Congress or the Courts, or the Executive can step in and stop one of the other branches from using a crisis as cover for grabbing absolute authority is a good thing.
P.S. Don't smoke and buckle your seat belt - I'd much rather have you living Free than the alternative.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 07, 2007 03:11 AM (Z3kjO)
8
Steve,
I refrain from smoking and buckle my seat belt voluntarily, rather than doing so due to nanny state coercion.
There have been plans in place for the continuity of gov't for many years, well before Clinton and Bush were in office. Many are suspicious when such plans are altered, given the current trend where power seems to be coagulating unjustifiably into the executive branch. Look at the recent rash of signing statements by the prez as one small example.
Suspicion and vigilance are necessary and justified in maintaining healthy republic. All "public servants" should be aware that the public is watching intently, otherwise there is a strong temptation for shenanigans, regardless of party affiliation.
Time will tell.
I refrain from smoking and buckle my seat belt voluntarily, rather than doing so due to nanny state coercion.
There have been plans in place for the continuity of gov't for many years, well before Clinton and Bush were in office. Many are suspicious when such plans are altered, given the current trend where power seems to be coagulating unjustifiably into the executive branch. Look at the recent rash of signing statements by the prez as one small example.
Suspicion and vigilance are necessary and justified in maintaining healthy republic. All "public servants" should be aware that the public is watching intently, otherwise there is a strong temptation for shenanigans, regardless of party affiliation.
Time will tell.
Posted by: Wayne at June 07, 2007 03:35 AM (gdnZz)
9
Yes, there continuity plans for decades. But the plans put in place in 1980 might not work to well in 2007. For one thing the structure of the executive branch has changed with the addition of new cabinet level departments. We can debate whether or not the consolidation of a number of functions under the Department of Homeland Security was a good thing or not, but since it exists and has its claws into a lot of things that we would want to have functioning in a crisis - maybe updating the plan to include it isn't a bad idea. Nor is a bad thing that in a crisis the Congress and the Courts will be there and able to keep an eye on them.
And yes, we should keep all be keeping an eye on all of them and working to protect and expand liberty. But hyperventilating over something that far from being a threat should serve to protect liberty is not productive.
The sort of knee-jerk paranoia of the post that was the subject here probably does more harm to the cause of liberty than the the government updating and coordinating its continuity plans.
And yes, we should keep all be keeping an eye on all of them and working to protect and expand liberty. But hyperventilating over something that far from being a threat should serve to protect liberty is not productive.
The sort of knee-jerk paranoia of the post that was the subject here probably does more harm to the cause of liberty than the the government updating and coordinating its continuity plans.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 07, 2007 03:58 AM (Z3kjO)
10
It never harms the cause of liberty to be wary of big gov't. I agree that knee-jerk reactions can be counter-productive, but your point about the existence of the Dept. of Homeland Security is a good one.
Although 9-11 was tragic, my biggest problem with 9-11 was our reaction to it. Why couldn't we just improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies we already had in place rather than create a huge, expensive new bureaucracy.
I find it interesting that when private business fails at its mission, they contract or go bankrupt; When gov't fails they ask for even more money and continue to grow in power and scope. What's wrong with this picture?
Although 9-11 was tragic, my biggest problem with 9-11 was our reaction to it. Why couldn't we just improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies we already had in place rather than create a huge, expensive new bureaucracy.
I find it interesting that when private business fails at its mission, they contract or go bankrupt; When gov't fails they ask for even more money and continue to grow in power and scope. What's wrong with this picture?
Posted by: Wayne at June 07, 2007 05:23 AM (gdnZz)
36kb generated in 0.0483 seconds; 40 queries returned 187 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
