Touching down briefly at anti-war "Micheal Rivero's What Really Happened" and saw a linked excerpt titled "The Late, Great American Nation." I read the tease and clicked on, and was amazed with where I landed. It was the website of The Rutherford Institute, a legal defense foundation devoted mostly to religious freedom constitutional cases. I am familiar with it and its founder, John W. Whitehead, because it was his first book, "The Second American Revolution" that most opened my eyes to the Christian "genesis" of much of the thought that inspired the Constitution. It was such an inspiration to me, and for my Christian walk, and toward our journey through homeschooling. Of particular importance to me was his exposition of the historical perspective in the question of "Rex Lex, or Lex Rex?" (The King is the Law - or - The Law is the King?") While the country is indebted to Mr. Whitehead for his defense of liberty, and while I agree that he cannot allow himself to be viewed as one closely aligned with what's commonly known as "The Christian Right," (whatever that is), what I saw on this website was a complete surprise to me.We live in a fundamentally different country since 9/11. Not only do many Americans view their government with suspicion, but how their government views them has drastically changed.Apparently, the "pre-transformation" congress liked th idea of a dictatorship. Attorney Whitehead represents cases to the Supreme Court for pete's sake. He wants us to believe that HE is afraid of a Bush-Cheney dictatorship? Does this constitutional "scholar" not know that martial law is a constitutionally advocated, temporary and responsible step to take in a national emergency? It does not equate with a "dictatorship."
A perfect example of this took place last fall. Prior to the elections that transformed the makeup of Congress, the Bush Administration pushed for the inclusion of two stealth provisions into a mammoth defense budget bill. The additions made it easier for the government to declare martial law and establish a dictatorship.
Since the days of our Founding Fathers, when King George III used his armies to terrorize and tyrannize the colonies, the American people have understandably distrusted the use of a national military force to intervene in civilian affairs, except in instances of extreme emergency and limited duration.The next two paragraphs comprised the teaser from 'whatreallyhappened.com' that caught my attention initially - does it make you roll your incredulous eyes the way it did me? (EM mine)
Hence, as a sign of the Founders’ concern that the people not be under the power of a military government, control of the military was vested in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 furthered those safeguards against military law, making it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force.
However, with the inclusion of a seemingly insignificant rider into the massive defense bill (the martial law section of the 591-page Defense Appropriations Act takes up just a few paragraphs), the Bush Administration has managed to weaken what the New York Times refers to as “two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty.” One is posse comitatus. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which limits a president’s domestic use of the military to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion where a state is violating federal law or depriving the people of their constitutional rights.
Under these new provisions, the president can now use the military as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.” According to the new law, Bush doesn’t even have to notify Congress of his intent to use military force against the American people—he just has to notify them once he has done so. The defense budget provision’s vague language leaves the doors wide open for rampant abuse. As writer Jane Smiley noted, “the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy.”Uh-huh...Not that our military has anything to fear from its own citizens! Anyone remember Oklahoma City? As one who resolutely believes that the home of fascism in America is within the Democratic Party, I have no glee over these changes in the law. If any current political party uses, as Whitehead says the King of England did, "armies to terrorize and tyrannize the colonies" it will not be the Republicans. Or the Christian Right. (Whoever they are.)
The main reason we do not want the military patrolling our streets is that under martial law, the Bill of Rights becomes null and void ED: no need for constitutional lawyers?. A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the American people of any vestige of freedom. Thus, if we were subject to martial law, there would be no rules, no protections, no judicial oversight and no elections. And unless these provisions are repealed, the president’s new power will be set in stone for future administrations to use—and abuse.
Follow the link above to read how Whitehead becomes even more conspiratorial injecting "Halliburton" and even the dreaded Clinton-era-militia-minded "detention camps" into his paranoid rant - you didn't really think they were for illegal immigrants - did you?
Anyway, my disappointed response...
The question in my mind after Hurricane Katrina was, "Hey Louisiana, what did you expect - that the United States Military would invade Louisiana?" All these months later, with no coherent response from its critics, the president gets the message. "Yes, you were supposed to invade Louisiana to save them from their incompetent and corrupt Democratic leadership." If citizens are going to elect organized crime syndicates to state office, then it will be up to Washington DC to save them from themselves when its discovered that money for civil projects has for years been systematically skimmed. That's why the mentioned language was inserted into the defense bill.
I was a precinct committeeman in Indianapolis in the mid to late-eighties. Had a conversation with a Democrat counterpart that I will never forget. I was trying to warn him that politics is cyclical, and that even though the Democrats had controlled congress and the courts for the best part of fifty years or more (at that time) - the time was surely coming that republicans would become a majority party. My concern for both of us was that all the powers the courts had taken from the states and given to the feds were then going to be in the hands of a Republican majority. His only reponse was "Well, we'll just have to see to it that it never happens."
Well, it happened, despite his party's arrogance. And now, since from Bangor to San Diego we've been screaming that the U.S. military's response to Katrina was too slow, we'll see how long it takes during the next crisis...
I haven't heard much about the Rutherford Institute since those days either. That's when I got a rather contrarian exposure to the Constitution of The United States from Whitehead's "The Second American Revolution." I was absolutely inspired and moved to take action by it. It's gratifying to see that you are continuing the fight for religious freedom in our courts. Although I can hardly contain my disapproval, not that it will matter to you, that you pretend not to know why the defense budget contains what it does. The funniest thing is, while I can find all manner of print items for sale at The Rutherford Institute's website, I can't find the book that started it all for me.
