On September 3, 1783, the American Revolution ended with the Paris Peace Treaty. Three months later, General George Washington met with his officers to announce his retirement and to thank them for their service. The gathering took place in lower Manhattan of New York City, on the second floor of a tiny nondescript building known as Fraunce's Tavern. The historic tavern is located a couple of blocks from Wall Street--less than a mile from the shattered scene of New York's World Trade Center.

Fraunces Tavern (pronounced FRAWN sehz), at the corner of Broad and Pearl, is one of the city's oldest houses. Long Room, where this event took place, has Revolutionary War flags and many relics. Etienne de Lancey, a rich Huguenot, built it as a home in 1719. In 1762, Samuel Fraunces, a West Indian, bought the house and opened it as the Queen's Head Tavern. The Sons of the Revolution bought the building and restored it between 1904 and 1907. It was thereafter operated as a restaurant catering to luncheon crowds from the surrounding financial district and competing with nearby Delmonicos where once the Rockefellers, Mellons, Astors, and other moguls of finance bartered major business deals.

In the early 1980's terrorist bombed historical Fraunces doing extensive damage. Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization didn't exist at that time but--like bin Laden--those responsible knew American history, understood the American psyche, and were more attentive than most American citizens. Such things define strengths in terrorist and weaknesses in America.

The fundalmental greatness of the American system, as designed by the founders, is the power sharing arrangement, or "separation of powers," between the three branches of the federal government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Yet, few Americans could describe this basic concept let alone explain its principles. For the past fifty years social engineers, in the guise of judges, have routinely stepped into the legislative arena and whimpish law makers, afraid to confront the most serious issues, have stood aside.

Following Watergate and Vietnam, Congress--then controlled by Democrats--made aggressive moves to neutralize the Presidency and in the process turned the Constitution on its ear. Some members surely had good intentions but, as is often the case, rash actions produce irrational results. Nixon's resignation turned the office over to Gerry Ford, then Jimmy Carter. Both men were inclined to pander to the American public rather than resist Congress's usurpation of Executive powers.

One of the first irrational acts, undertaken in 1973, was to over-ride a Presidential veto and pass the War Powers Act which effectively moved crucial commander-in-chief operational powers from the President to committee leaders in Congress.

More subtle acts followed. Having usurped the powers of the Presidency, Congress moved on to micro-manage the various departments of the Executive Branch: Defense, Justice, Immigration, FBI, CIA, FAA, and all the others. Following the lead of the most liberal federal judges, Congress began all sorts of new, untested, social experiments. Most notable today was the complete reversal of traditional immigration laws.

Congressional over-reaching is disguised as "over-sight" but anyone who watches committee hearings will see that members go well beyond gathering information and investigating operations. Orders, instructions, demands, threats, and brow-beating gush from the dais of committee after committee. From time-to-time the terrible, horrendous, implications of this fragmented, disjointed, confusing system comes to our attention but the most critical dangers of such methods are unclear to the general public.

The whole bastardized system might produce some good results in a more congenial atmosphere but Congress has allowed a wild card into the fray. Their absolute devotion, worship, idolatry of political parties now transcends all other considerations. When there is a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans gang up on his department heads... When a Republican is in, the Democrats get even. Room for reason has been swept aside and the fight is no longer over ideas... Its plain old bare-knuckled politics for power. Each side wants power over the other to gain the ego pampering advantage of bigger budgets, best offices, parking spots, job titles, and whatever other inane emoluments may be gleaned.

Washington's retirement at Fraunces Tavern didn't last. In 1789 he was asked to serve once more and as his second term closed, he again said farewell.

Washington is renowned for his short speeches. In fact, his second inaugural speech is the shortest on record as he simply told the waiting crowd that if he thought of anything to report, he would let them know. His final Farewell Address lasted less than fifteen minutes, yet half of the time was devoted to a single subject.

In his lifetime he had encountered all matter of threats, deaths, challenges, and dangers. He had fought Indians, the British, and pirates. As the first President he had demonstrated his understanding of the art of compromise and getting along with others. He had led the new nation to victory through a revolution. He had spent eight years forging the new office of President of the United States. But on this most solemn occasion, he singled out and warned the people of America of a danger that he considered its most serious threat--the hateful, spiteful, revengeful, divisive, and meanness, possible with rival political parties. In part he said:

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. .......

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

However, parties did develop and prosper but dirty politics were usually restricted to campaigns. The three branches of government maintained a respectful distance from each other, according to Washington's admonishment in his Farewell Address:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."

From Washington's time through the 1960's the country maintained immigration laws consistent with most other nations and administered by the Executive Branch. In 1973, as Congress began its direct, aggressive assaults on the Executive departments, things changed to the detriment of the nation. Under the founder's system, immigration to this country required an application, a health physical, and usually a waiting period. The State Department, through its embassies, had review rights and the authority to reject an applicant. If questions arose, the CIA and/or FBI became involved. All this was done PRIOR to immigration. Then, new immigrants had to wait five years and pass tests for literacy, English, and knowledge of the U.S. system of government before being granted citizenship.

However, as Congress encroached into the Executive Branch it saw new golden opportunities to gain voters through immigration. Laws and rules were modified: Student visa's, work permits, exceptions, and special arrangements of uncounted number were put into practice until we reached our current sorry state: Virtually no effective immigration laws.

Members of Congress utilized the age old practice of tacking "pork barrel" amendments onto any bill to pacify and win voting favor from ethnic constituencies. Immigration rules were modified, exceptions made, special visas allowed, work permits granted, and in general Congress placed immigration authority into the hands of a few bureaucrats that they could control.

So that visitors in the U.S. could vote, pressure was put on state and local political bosses to overlook citizenship requirements. When that didn't always work, waiting periods for naturalization were waived. The most egregious example of this was during Clinton's campaign for re-election... In a series of ceremonies in California, waiting periods were waived and nearly 1,000,000 selected people were quickly made U.S. citizens. The results of that dirty little coup appeared in the last Presidential election when Al Gore won the state by over 500,000 votes although California had traditionally been a split state--as apt to vote Republican as Democrat.

But one important thing about Bill Clinton's political career was that he didn't do anything new. He was highly successful at playing politics because he took advantage of techniques used by both parties in the past, thus muting complaints from the opposition. He then was able to elevate dirty tricks to a new level and his critics could be shouted down with the tired old refrain, "everybody does it."

A consequence of the new age immigration rules is that there are now in excess of 3,000,000 [CORRECTION: new census data just released puts that number at nearly 8,000,000] illegal residents in the U.S. [many of them vote] but about 100,000 of these have been ordered deported [and many of them also vote]. Listen carefully... 100,000 illegal residents are in the U.S. although they have been ordered deported by the courts. That means they were CAUGHT as entering illegally or broke other U.S. laws. BUT, because of political correctness [fear of alienating a particular ethnic group], Congress thinks these individuals should be entitled to the same legal processes as a citizen charged with a minor crime. Therefore, Congress has made sure that courts grant bail even AFTER a deportation order has been entered [right of appeal]. Of course, the convicted illegals simply walk away, knowing full well that the INS doesn't have the resources to track them down... Congress also makes sure of that.

Under the pre-1970 immigration rules, entry could be refused or an immigrant deported as an "undesirable alien." That principle was often abused because it was applied to anyone who didn't agree whole-heartily with the INS's notion of what it took to be an American. Congress took over and went over-board in the opposite direction.

Consequently, the U.S. is teeming with terrorist. If the principles annunciated by Bush are strictly enforced, we will have to go to war against ourselves.

It'll get interesting if other nations call our hand. Which country will be first to step up and tell us to clean up our own act, THEN they'll clean up theirs? What can be said if we're the most culpable nation in the world for harboring terrorist? [OOPS, see note below!]

This most serious of all problems exposed itself on September 11, 2001. Since then not one federal official has mentioned the real problem: Lack of control over our borders. Officials have admitted that we have no reliable intelligence information to intercept terrorist but its just as true that we have no control over foreign nationals entering the country and no one in Washington is even discussing it.

Problem solving is not an art. Its a practiced skill--learning what works and what doesn't--and Congress is not equiped for complex problems that may develop from day-to-day. Congress is well suited for deliberation, debate, and slow orderly resolution. The problem as exposed on September 11, is that access to American soil is out of control. The solution--before attacking any subset of the problem--is to get control over border access. Chasing terrorist in Florida while more are rushing across the border in Montana is silly on its face. Putting National Guard in airports while terrorist pour into North Dakota is ludicrous. Rounding up terrorist in Texas while more sail into the bayous of Louisiana is inane.

On this point, a name from the past has now emerged: Admiral Stansfield Turner. The very same man... President Jimmy Carter's old pal from the Navy and Director of the CIA. After Carter left the White House, Turner disappeared from view but the current crisis brought him back to life.

Turner has been all over TV--on every cable show--denouncing current immigration policy and asserting that the first order of business is to gain control of our borders. Hear! Hear! He's exactly right, and he comes across as a direct, no nonsense man who speaks his mind... But my memory is better than his.

When Turner headed the CIA he objected only mildly when Congress meddled in his agency's deepest intelligence secrets. The Church committee in the Senate asked that the CIA divulge names of it's spies and Turner obliged. Naturally, the House jumped on board and insisted that it was equally entitled to those secrets. Within weeks names of American spies began to appear in publications around the globe and the agents were quickly murdered--or as they say in the spy business--eliminated. Over 100 American spies and double agents were eventually killed and hundreds more quit, leaving the United States without effective human intelligence gathering capability. Also, the precedent established by the Church committee continues today, and because so many people are involved in the process, the CIA cannot recruit spies overseas.

Wide open borders and the lack of human intelligence makes it easy for Osama bin Laden or other determined terrorist to kill 6,000 Americans at a time. But Congress is determined to maintain micro-control of the CIA, DOD, FBI, NSA, and the "war" on terrorism. They don't want to re-visit the serious questions of immigration and intelligence gathering for fear of losing that power.

Reverting to "separation of powers" does not, as some argue, put unbridled power in the office of the President. It RESTORES the balance: Leaving day-to-day operations to the chief executive and placing legislation and power of the purse with Congress. Under the Constitution, two-thirds of Congress can overrule a President on ANYTHING: Cut off funds, cancel laws, whatever is necessary, including removing him from office.

The conduct of Congress is not consistent with devoted public employees interested in providing a public service. Most time is devoted to raw, bare-knuckled, barroom brawls----a holy war for political party supremacy. As George Washington would say, "see, I told you so."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[NOTE: The above was written Oct. 2, 2001. The prophesy of another country calling our hand for harboring terrorist has already come true. Fox News reported, Oct. 4, 2001, that Cuba's Fidel Castro has done just that. He suggested that the U.S. should clean up its own act before going after other countries. He went on to say that he would join with other countries to eradicate terrorism but not the U.S. because we are a major contributor to the problem.

For the first time in forty years, I find myself in full agreement with Fidel Castro... And that's pretty sad.]

Mundus Novus Historia®

Historical perspective courtesy of:
The History Professor®

Please comment: