Well, if Peggy Noonan found it disturbing... (and something else Nazi-ish about Bush)

Peggy Noonan is prolly one of my favorite people to ever come out of mainstream politics in the last 20 years or so. Didja know that she's the one who helped Reagan with his speech on the afternoon after the Challenger exploded? Still makes me cry whenever I read the words of that.

Well, she's also someone who ain't afraid to note when something is terribly out of kilter, no matter who it's regarding. And in "Way Too Much God", she's got some choice words about Bush's inauguration speech. It's a good read and worth contemplating and there's a lot I could cite from it, but here's the heartmeat of her beef about what was wrong with Bush's mindset yesterday:

"This world is not heaven."

A man can follow Christ. A man can be the world's most powerful leader. But a man cannot be a Christian world leader in the sincerest sense at all unless he surrenders to what that statement means.

Also found this, "Will Bush Side with the Property Thieves?" published at the Future of Freedom Foundation's website. Never heard of these guys but they oppose gun control, federalized education and socialized medicine... so they're hitting on all the right cylinders in my book. The author of this piece, one Sheldon Richman, is noting that the Bush Administration is coming down on the side of local governments that condemn and seize the property of average citizens and small businesses, then sell the land to major corporations (Wal-Mart has been involved in a number of such incidents) to develop as they please. The rationale posed by the municipalities is that big companies - like Pfizer, mentioned in the article - will produce much more tax revenue for these governments than do small-fries like Joe Sixpack and Pop's Corner Grocery. Doesn't look like they've done anything official yet, however according to Richman's piece...

The twist is that the Bush administration — self-proclaimed champion of the "ownership society" — will apparently give its blessing to the land heist. According to the Wall Street Journal, "[The] Administration may file an amicus brief against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain." Several property-rights advocacy organizations have publicly asked the administration to side with the landowners but — ominously — there's been no response.

If they support this seizure in such a way, the Bush Administration will be saying, in effect, that in the eyes of American law that some really are "more equal than others". But somehow I don't think that even Orwell would have conceived of a day when in the United States a large corporation - an artificial entity - would be given greater consideration and priority over a flesh-and-blood individual.

Someone in the comments recently suggested I was being foolish for comparing Bush to Hitler. Well, that Bush is even considering putting his support behind this kind of practice is as damned close to what the Nazis held to as you can get: National Socialism was a centralized authoritiarian government much like that of the Soviet Union. But unlike the Communists, National Socialism didn't just allow but encouraged private industry, especially large corporate entities... so long as they contributed to the sustenance of the government's power. Whatever was deemed necessary to keep the trains running on time for the political and industrial leaders, was carried out... and individuals be damned!

Folks, what Bush is close to giving a wink toward was standard procedure of the Third Reich. And if he has no problem with letting ordinary Americans having their homes and livelihoods destroyed for sake of a major corporation, what might such a mind do if he deemed it required that such sacrifices be made for "the homeland"?

There is either the right to possess your own property in America without feeling threatened by undue seizure, or there is NO right at all and what you think of as "yours" is ultimately government's to take at its pleasure. If the latter is the predominant mindset behind this government's motive, then there exists no basis for freedom or liberty in America at all, since the right to own personal property is the absolute foundation upon which all other rights and liberties are derived.

Thus, President George W. Bush has set himself up as the sworn enemy of freedom and liberty for the American people.

Thought y'all would like to know that.

And I'll close this post with a final remark relating to all this: was in a history class in college years ago that was discussing this very thing on a philosophical level. And it was agreed upon - by FAR more than those opposed to it - that if such a thing were to ever start happening in America, that we owed it to ourselves and our posterity to preserve the right to private ownership, and defend our own homes accordingly. And if that meant assassinating those who so lusted after that which was rightfully ours that they tried to take it by force of government... well, there would be a moral obligation to do so.

No, again I don't want to see anyone killed. But gotta admit, there's something to be said about instilling a healthy dose of fear in would-be tyrants when those they would lord over realize that they need not so eagerly take up the rifle, but merely keep it ready beside the front door.

Don't trust anyone, unless you're fully convinced they're worth trusting. The Founders did a work of genius when they intended there to be a level of tension between those that govern, and those that extend their grace to be governed.