The Devil is in the Details
Now defunct ex-FEMA director, Michael Brown, is in the news today to accept greater blame for the post-Katrina relief efforts in the ghost town of New Orleans. However, a serious consideration of his hindsights are chilling. Here's what he said:
This is utter nonsense. As anyone that followed the story knows, the chaos was due more to FEMA's obstruction of the relief efforts, and not this alleged incapacity. The issue was certainly NOT military control. Evacuation and simple necessities like food and water do not require military oversight. To say that the military was required because the disaster was beyond the capacity of the state and local governments, and FEMA itself is simply untrue.
But, let's go back a few months to the brief September 15th speech by Bush on the empty soil of New Orleans. Let's see if we can find in Bush this same theme as proposed by Michael Brown:
Did you catch that? Let me get this straight. The government fouls up in relieving a national disaster and they ask for greater federal authority and military control? In an odd statement by Bush from the New Orleans speech we have the "Freudian Slip":
Exactly! I create the problem, so that I can offer the solution, and thereby gain more authority. It's clear that the increase of federal control over America and the push for a military state is the driving thrust of the Bush administration. Consider the following comments made by Bush at his October 14th press conference:
Michael Brown's acceptance of guilt brings the discussion once again to public awareness. My hope is that Americans will be outraged at the suggestion of greater federal control and domestic military encroachment. When taken in tandem with the increase in domestic surveillance the national image bears a close resemblance to Orwell's world of tyranny.
Let's face it folks, an entire city -- New Orleans -- was relocated. And now the president wants the Department of Homeland Security (aren't they supposed to be chasing terrorists?) to develop "emergency plans" in every major city in the United States:
All of American society may soon be under direct federal control. Just one major terror attack, one epidemic, one outbreak is all it would take to bring the lusted military state into fruition.
This is why I continue to be astonished at the exaggerated claim by the secularists that the United States is teetering on the threshold of a theocracy. As they incessantly complain about the latest event of the Religious Right the nation is being positioned for massive government expansion. The secularists are either overlooking this or a part of the controlled opposition. In my opinion, they are overlooking the matter. Both the Religious Right and the Religious Left can be "useful" to American despotism if they're not careful.
It's fascism folks, plain and simple. The Religious Right will soon find out they were accomplices in the greatest decline of freedom in U.S. history. The Religious Left will discover that instead of complaining too much about issues such as Intelligent Design -- which will never be ratified -- they could have helped to awaken their constituency to the threat of fascism. I applaud the fine job many on the political left have done to highlight this threat. But, for the rest of them, focusing on the Religious Right is plucking the fruit instead of severing the root. I suggest a different campaign. Find the weak spot, and exploit it. "Justice Sunday" is not the weak point. The weak point is the Religious Right's sinful marriage to statism. Show them from their own Bible the error of their ways.
I suggested this to one fine progressive commentator: Since so many secular pundits claim Rushdoony is the source material for the rise of the Christian Right, then use Rushdoony to correct the Christian Right. Rushdoony opposed war, tyranny, police state measures, deficit spending, inflation, political manipulation, etc. He would have disapproved of the present pursuits of many on the Christian Right, and his emphasis would be placed on education, the church, and the family -- not politics.
"I should have asked for the MILITARY sooner. I should have demanded the MILITARY sooner," Brown told a gathering of meteorologists at a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada.
"It was beyond the capacity of the state and local governments, and it was beyond the capacity of FEMA," said Brown, former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (emphasis added)
This is utter nonsense. As anyone that followed the story knows, the chaos was due more to FEMA's obstruction of the relief efforts, and not this alleged incapacity. The issue was certainly NOT military control. Evacuation and simple necessities like food and water do not require military oversight. To say that the military was required because the disaster was beyond the capacity of the state and local governments, and FEMA itself is simply untrue.
But, let's go back a few months to the brief September 15th speech by Bush on the empty soil of New Orleans. Let's see if we can find in Bush this same theme as proposed by Michael Brown:
Yet the system at every level of government, was not well coordinated and was overwhelmed in the first few days. IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT A CHALLENGE ON THIS SCALE REQUIRES GREATER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND A BROADER ROLE FOR THE ARMED FORCES -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice. (emphasis added)
Did you catch that? Let me get this straight. The government fouls up in relieving a national disaster and they ask for greater federal authority and military control? In an odd statement by Bush from the New Orleans speech we have the "Freudian Slip":
Four years after the frightening experience of September 11th, Americans have every right to expect a more effective response in a time of emergency. When the federal government fails to meet such an obligation, I AS PRESIDENT AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROBLEM, AND FOR THE SOLUTION. (emphasis added)
Exactly! I create the problem, so that I can offer the solution, and thereby gain more authority. It's clear that the increase of federal control over America and the push for a military state is the driving thrust of the Bush administration. Consider the following comments made by Bush at his October 14th press conference:
The policy decisions for a President in dealing with an avian flu outbreak are difficult. One example: If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country, and how do you then enforce a quarantine? When -- it's one thing to shut down airplanes; it's another thing to prevent people from coming in to get exposed to the avian flu. And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? ONE OPTION IS THE USE OF A MILITARY that's able to plan and move. (emphasis added)
Michael Brown's acceptance of guilt brings the discussion once again to public awareness. My hope is that Americans will be outraged at the suggestion of greater federal control and domestic military encroachment. When taken in tandem with the increase in domestic surveillance the national image bears a close resemblance to Orwell's world of tyranny.
Let's face it folks, an entire city -- New Orleans -- was relocated. And now the president wants the Department of Homeland Security (aren't they supposed to be chasing terrorists?) to develop "emergency plans" in every major city in the United States:
Therefore, I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to undertake an immediate review, in cooperation with local counterparts of emergency plans in every major city in America.
All of American society may soon be under direct federal control. Just one major terror attack, one epidemic, one outbreak is all it would take to bring the lusted military state into fruition.
This is why I continue to be astonished at the exaggerated claim by the secularists that the United States is teetering on the threshold of a theocracy. As they incessantly complain about the latest event of the Religious Right the nation is being positioned for massive government expansion. The secularists are either overlooking this or a part of the controlled opposition. In my opinion, they are overlooking the matter. Both the Religious Right and the Religious Left can be "useful" to American despotism if they're not careful.
It's fascism folks, plain and simple. The Religious Right will soon find out they were accomplices in the greatest decline of freedom in U.S. history. The Religious Left will discover that instead of complaining too much about issues such as Intelligent Design -- which will never be ratified -- they could have helped to awaken their constituency to the threat of fascism. I applaud the fine job many on the political left have done to highlight this threat. But, for the rest of them, focusing on the Religious Right is plucking the fruit instead of severing the root. I suggest a different campaign. Find the weak spot, and exploit it. "Justice Sunday" is not the weak point. The weak point is the Religious Right's sinful marriage to statism. Show them from their own Bible the error of their ways.
I suggested this to one fine progressive commentator: Since so many secular pundits claim Rushdoony is the source material for the rise of the Christian Right, then use Rushdoony to correct the Christian Right. Rushdoony opposed war, tyranny, police state measures, deficit spending, inflation, political manipulation, etc. He would have disapproved of the present pursuits of many on the Christian Right, and his emphasis would be placed on education, the church, and the family -- not politics.
