A Nation of Sheeple

[TrainTrac]

Shortly after the devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there was a discussion here about the President's idea to have the regular military be first responders to natural disasters. Personally, I think it's a scary concept. Here's a good column discussing this very thing:

A nation of sheeple

By Walter E. Williams



Oct 19, 2005



Professor, George Mason University and syndicated columnist





President Bush informed the nation, during a press conference, that he might seek to use the U.S. military to quarantine parts of the nation should there be a serious outbreak of the deadly avian flu that has killed millions of chickens and 60-some people in Southeast Asia. That's the second time Bush has expressed a desire to use the military for local policing. The first was in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the U.S. National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the U.S. Constitution or Congress.



Enacted during Reconstruction, the purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act was to severely limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for local law enforcement. Would Americans tolerate such a gigantic leap in the federalization of law enforcement? I'm guessing the answer is yes. In the name of safety, we've undergone decades of softening up to accept just about any government edict that our predecessors would have found offensive. Let's look at some of it.



The anti-smoking movement might be the beginning of the softening up process. They started out calling for reasonable actions like no-smoking sections on airplanes. Then it progressed to no smoking on airplanes altogether, then private establishments such as restaurants and businesses. Emboldened by the timidity of smokers, in some jurisdictions there are ordinances banning smoking in outdoor places such as beaches and parks. Then there are seatbelt and helmet laws that have sometimes been zealously enforced through the use of night vision goggles. On top of this, Americans accept government edicts on where your child may ride in your car. Americans sheepishly accepted all sorts of Transportation Security Administration nonsense. In the name of security, we've allowed fingernail clippers, eyeglass screwdrivers and toy soldiers to be taken from us prior to boarding a plane.



We've accepted federal intrusion in our financial privacy through the Bank Secrecy Act. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, says, "More than 99.999 percent of those [who] had their privacy invaded were law-abiding citizens going about their own personal financial business." Most recently there's the U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision, where the court held that local governments can take a private person's house and turn it over to another private person. Politicians have learned and become comfortable with the fact that today's Americans will docilely accept just about any legalized restraint on their behavior.



You say, "Hey, Williams, but it's the law!" In the late-1700s, the British Parliament enacted the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts, and imposed other grievances that are enumerated in our Declaration of Independence. I'm happy that we didn't have today's Americans around at the time to bow before King George III and say, "It's the law." Respectful of the Posse Comitatus Act, President Bush has suggested that he'll ask Congress to amend the law to allow for the use of the U.S. military to enforce regional quarantines. Whether Congress amends the law or not, Bush has no constitutional authority to deploy military troops across the land. Why?



The U.S. Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shal

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess!



FEMA and Bush are slammed for not responding quick enough and with appropriate force when Katrina hit, and now when Bush does what Bush is good at and tries "takes matters into his own hands" he gets slammed for that too.



FEMA isn't a emergency response unit, historically. That's what the National Guard has done in almost all cases in the past...when not off fighting foreign wars.



There are no quick solutions here folks, but please remember that a littany of complaints is not a plan.



TJR

 

[TomT]

Big government is really just needed in areas with a lame-duck local government like New Orleans. I believe most cities and states are a little more organized and self sufficient.

 

[brandon mena]

Americans are too soft compared to our forefathers. Every way possible we have made our lives easier and more dependent on technology and leadership. If a civil war ever broke out again we would be quickly put in our place like a bunch of rowdy kindergardeners. Men aren't men anymore, not enough of em' anyway.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I agree with that TomT, but GWB doesn't do "nuiance"....to him its all or nothing.



TJR

 

[Jim Luttrell]

Right on Brandon64! I saw two college guys (in their 20's) that couldn't even skrap the ice off their windows last year. It's very sad really.

 

[Michael Cacioppo]

No where in the constitution is it stated that the Federal government is responsible for giving money to people who have had bad luck. Is so then the Government should give me money when the stock market drops because of a Terrorist alert that I had no control over. It's getting that stupid. When California had its earthquake about ten years ago, the Feds helped with low cost loans, They didn't pay to fix it so that it could never happen again. It is everyone's response ability to try and take care of themselves and their families in a legal manner. They can elect local officials to help plan and guide their safety. The Feds protect you from "foreign" threats, not corrupt politicians.

 

[Jay Pearson]

jimstracn..



I bet you they could spell "scrape" :wacko:

 

[Jeff C]

Americans are too soft compared to our forefathers. Every way possible we have made our lives easier and more dependent on technology and leadership. If a civil war ever broke out again we would be quickly put in our place like a bunch of rowdy kindergardeners. Men aren't men anymore, not enough of em' anyway.

That was back when the citizens and gov't had the same guns. Now we have assault rifles, and they have cruise missiles...not the same fight, lol.

 

[Dre L]

You post an article, the sheep will defend their shepard.



Brandon and Jim have it right, but it ain't (oops that's not a word) just the men, it's the women too.



People are not as strong as they used to be, and I pity them. I am not one of them, I am not a person. I learned long ago that I must be the *******. It is impossible for everyone else around me to be an *******, so it must be me. I thank one of the other *******s in my life for teaching me that lesson, he was full of wisdom in a strange way, but we realized that we that feel there is something wrong with almost everyone else, are a collective group of *******s, because it is not possible for almost everyone else in the world to be.



Leadership??? What leadership? We have a bunch of sheep (personally I always referred to them as cows, but for the sake of this sheeple post, it fits also) that made it to the front of the herd, looking for guidance from the bunch of deer in headlights in DC right now. Again, I find myself and my fellow *******s at fault because this GREAT NATION can't possibly be led by a bunch of fools. It is not possible that fools can vote in fools, because they were either foolish, or had no better choice. I say that there should be another checkbox on the ballot people, "NONE OF THE ABOVE".



I'm sure that I understand the founders of this nation now. I hear that when they declared independance, the King boldly proclaimed "What a bunch of *******s".



*******s UNITE!

 

[Dre L]

That my friend is the one we are looking for.



If you'll remember, a bunch of *******s united for a common cause, there was no "number 1".



For his actions however, once we were in the clear, and the King said "I don't want anything more to do with those *******s, leave them be", all the other *******s agreed that one bright shining ******* stood out and deserved to be the number one *******, our first president.



He did not seek out the position, he earned it, he was asked to be President. Leadership is not bestowed from above, it is recognized from amongst your peers.



Now remember, just because your name is George, it doesn't make you an *******.

 

[Ryan Y]

Right on Jeff C. !! The right to bear arms was originally meant for us to be able to rise up against the government if they should ever get too big for their britches... but that's all shot to hell now....

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Wow....



I love the rhetoric that flys around ("sheeple", "who are the real assholes", "fools voting in fools") as it all seems like justifications and rationalizations that try to explain how our sad, sad country must be mentally defective and lost because a core of its people don't think like "ME".



If you have to denegrade those that oppose you then your case can't be that strong.



TJR

 

[Dre L]

See.

 

[Dre L]

If you have to denegrade those that oppose you then your case can't be that strong.

I think you mean denigrate. I have no opposition, I have no side. I have yet to find one that is the "right" side, I don't think there is one.



My case is quite strong, I can't type that much, maybe I'll write a manifesto one day, or maybe I'll just ride this out knowing where I am and see what happens.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Military members are charged to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and carrying out the lawful orders of those appointed above them. One could make a case that a major disaster (hurricane, earthquake, plague, etc), like a war, is a threat to the Constitution, because it weakens the nation's ability to survive.

 

[Dre L]

charged to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and carrying out the lawful orders of those appointed above them

But if the order is not lawful...



Remember that the National Guard and the regular military are 2 different forces unless federalized in times of war.



This is also why you will see a press conference by local government saying something along the lines of "I have activated our National Guard and asked the President for military and other federal assistance"



And then the prez acknowledges with his own conference saying "I've granted ...."



The state invites the government in.



This is why there is jurisdiction between local and federal government and law enforcement.

 

[TrainTrac]

Military members are charged to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and carrying out the lawful orders of those appointed above them. One could make a case that a major disaster (hurricane, earthquake, plague, etc), like a war, is a threat to the Constitution, because it weakens the nation's ability to survive.

Isn't that stretching it a bit? Up until recent times, disasters like those you've mentioned have been the responsibility of the states as outlined in the Constitution:

The U.S. Constitution's Article IV, Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." Coupled with the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," this means short of an insurrection, the U.S. military must be invited by a state legislature or executive.

As Dr. Williams pointed out in his previous column, there have been Presidents in the past who understood the role of the Federal gov't as enumerated in the Constitution, and disaster relief was not one of the enumerated powers.

IS IT PERMISSIBLE?

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005



IS IT PERMISSIBLE?



Last week, President Bush promised the nation that the federal government will pay for most of the costs of repairing hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, adding, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again." There's no question that New Orleans and her sister Gulf Coast cities have been struck with a major disaster, but should our constitution become a part of the disaster? You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" Let's look at it.



In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, "I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."



President Cleveland added, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."



President Cleveland vetoed hundreds of congressional spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." But Cleveland wasn't the only president who failed to see charity as a function of the federal government. In 1854, after vetoing a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."



In 1796, Rep. William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying that Congress didn't have a right to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require." A couple of years earlier, James Madison, the father of our constitution, irate over a $15,000 congre

 

[Gavin Allan]

Just wait. Hillary will fix it all in a few years...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Nob said:

I think you mean denigrate.

Yup, that's what I meant. Still, don't dismiss my point, please. One can disagree with someone else and debate points of view without insinuating that the other party is stupid, brainwashed, etc.