So today's newsletter, which can be read in its entirety online HERE is particularly to the point. We have a history which cannot be denied. We have had liberal and conservative and middle-of-the-road administrations and congresses. All have made errors that lead us away from the foundational truths on which this nation was built. I can't quote the entire newsletter, although I urge you to read the whole thing (it's not THAT long, really). But, there are a series of quotes from various of the founders regarding the Constitution which seem to be very much at odds with contemporary liberalism, which I can quote in their entirety because they are in the public domain. I am not so much interested in preaching from the conservative choir, of which I consider myself a member, as much as I am interested in knowing what our resident liberals have to say about these things............loadedliberal, b322da, and others who have been unafraid to espouse more liberal ideas on these pages. You guys know who you are. I truly am not interested in a slam-fest. I seek understanding......something which we have too little of in today's discourse because it is far easier to pigeonhole those with whom we disagree and then simply discount anything they say. We then descend to the level of name calling, troll accusations, etc.
I believe that the upcoming presidential election is truly a pivoting point, far more so than any other in decades, and that the election results will determine if we irretrievably plummet headlong down the road we've been on for the past 3 years, or we get this nation turned around and restored to political sanity—fiscally, socially, constitutionally, etc.
The author of the article makes the following assertion:
(I confess that I have mixed feelings about #1 as I find much that is admirable about Abraham Lincoln.)Mark Alexander wrote:In the decades following our nation's founding, many of the great debates were centered on Liberty. The notions of containing the power of the central government and promoting individual freedom were fervently tested. But four major events in the years after 1850 altered the political debate and, tragically, increased the power of the central government far beyond its constitutional limits.
The first of those events was the War Between the States which cost 600,000 American lives and annulled the authority of our Constitution's mandate for Federalism. Unfortunately, today's "Republicans" tie their lineage to Abraham Lincoln, the man who engineered that frontal assault on states' rights.
The second major insult to Liberty came during the Great Depression, when Franklin Roosevelt and his "useful idiots" used the fear generated by economic crisis to implement his "New Deal," an explosive expansion of central government power that came at enormous offense to the authority of our Constitution.
The third colossal affront to our Constitution occurred under another Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who implemented his "Great Society" programs in response to fears about social and economic inequality.
The fourth and final nail in the coffin of American Liberty is being hammered in by Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist cadres. They are determined to replace our republican government with European-style Democratic Socialism, and they have made significant strides toward that terrible goal.
He then quotes the following Founders, and I will highlight in red those parts that I feel are salient:
George Washington wrote:The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.
George Washington wrote:Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the supineness or venality of their constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to show, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.
James Madison wrote:I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. ... If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. ... To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. ... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. ... [C]onfidence is every where the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy and not in confidence; it is jealousy & not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power ... in questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.
Alexander Hamilton wrote:[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. ... The Judiciary ... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. ... If it be asked, 'What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic?' The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws -- the first growing out of the last. ... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. ... [T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes -- rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments.
I underlined "present" because it translates as "as written and understood in the time which was Alexander Hamilton's "present."
A few days ago, I posted a story about federal agents from the Justice Department armed with automatic weapons swarming the Gibson Guitar factory because Gibson had purchased some Indian rosewood from Inda for the purpose of building guitars. (CLICK HERE FOR THE STORY.) Under Indian law, the rosewood may not be exported unless cleared for export by the Indian government. The wood in question was certified for export by the Indian government, and was exported by a third party company from whom Gibson purchased it. The rationale given by the Justice Department for the raid was that they were enforcing the laws of India! Indian law had not been violated, and India had not asked the Justice Department for aid in enforcing it.John Adams wrote:Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ... The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People. ... [T]hey may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. ... A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
Another famous guitar maker, C.F. Martin, also buys Indian rosewood from the same third party vendor for use in building Martin guitars. C.F. Martin has not been raided by the Justice Department, even though they are in possession of the exact same kind of wood, from the exact same vendor, all coming from India, where it was also certified for export by the Indian government. What is the difference between these two cases, and how does it tie into the above statements inferring a disintegration of our Constitution as a basis for government?
First, the CEO of Gibson guitars is a republican who is a major contributor to republican causes. The CEO of C.F. Martin is a democrat who is a major contributor to democrat causes. (SOURCE) The Justice Department is under the direction of the current administration, which is a product of the Chicago school of hardball politics. Draw your own conclusions.
But that still doesn't explain the fact that Justice was able to even allegedly legally mount this raid. Go read this very excellent explanatory blog post: http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com ... state.html.
Here are some of the things he lists taken from the regulation summary:What's going on here? Why is a company best known for producing electric guitars being raided by armed feds? Is it labor? Illegal aliens? Are they selling raw milk on the side? No, it's about wood. Wood?
In the last year of the W, the 2008 Farm Bill passed after his veto of it was over-ridden. Buried deep in this 663 page bill - that now seems tiny compared to the multi-thousand page engorged-tick monstrosity bills of the Obama administration - there was a provision nobody mentioned, nobody talked about, and nobody outside of a few activists even knew about until after the law was enacted. It was an amendment to the Lacey Act, a law passed in 1900, that "...prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, transported or sold" to quote the Wiki. I remember reading this summary in 2009, from the excellent piece on Classical Values, whose name I modified for this posting, and which you simply must read. Read this paragraph carefully:Looking around my house, not one piece of wooden furniture - either the ones I built or the ones I bought - has a label telling the genus and species it came from along with the country of origin. Certainly the toothpicks and knife handles don't. I see perhaps 2 dozen felonies within eye shot. Perhaps I should shut up about that.This amendment deals with illegal plants -- the primary thrust being illegal wood. Henceforth, all wood is to be a federally regulated, suspect substance. Either raw wood, lumber, or anything made of wood, from tables and chairs, to flooring, siding, particle board, to handles on knives, baskets, chopsticks, or even toothpicks has to have a label naming the genus and species of the tree that it came from and the country of origin. Incorrect labeling becomes a federal felony, and the law does not just apply to wood newly entering the country, but any wood that is in interstate commerce within the country. Here are some excerpts from a summary:
This 2009 amendment to the Lacy act makes it possible for the Justice Department to crush you like a bug for being in possession of literally almost anything. The only thing that (currently) stands between you the citizen and the full force of the Justice Department's thugs kicking down your door is whether or not your party of choice is in power. Don't believe it? Ask the CEOs of Gibson and C.F. Martin.Anyone who imports into the United States, or exports out of the United States, illegally harvested plants or products made from illegally harvested plants, including timber, as well as anyone who exports, transports, sells, receives, acquires or purchases such products in the United States, may be prosecuted. (italics added, bold in original - GB)
...the scope of products that will require a declaration under the Lacey Act is broad and includes certain live plants, plant parts, lumber, wood pulp, paper and paperboard, and products containing certain plant material or products, which may include certain furniture, tools, umbrellas, sporting goods, printed matter, musical instruments, products manufactured from plant-based resins, and textiles.
[...]
After September 30, 2009, based on experience with the implementation of the electronic system for declaration data collection, we will phase in enforcement of the declaration requirements for additional chapters containing plants and plant
products covered by the Lacey Act, including (but not limited to) Ch. 12 (oil seeds, misc. grain, seed, fruit, plant, etc.), Ch. 13 (gums, lacs, resins, vegetable saps, extracts, etc.), [vegetable saps and extracts? like olive oil, maple syrup? - gb, the blog post's author] Ch. 14 (vegetable plaiting materials and products not elsewhere specified or included), [the wildcard so they can arrest you for anything - gb, the blog post's author] Ch. 45 (cork and articles of), Ch. 46 (basket ware and wickerwork), Ch. 66 (umbrellas, walking sticks, riding crops), Ch. 82 (tools), Ch. 93 (guns), Ch. 95 (toys, games and sporting equipment), Ch. 96 (brooms, pencils, and buttons), and Ch. 97 (works of art). We will announce a specific phase-in schedule for those chapters in a subsequent Federal Register notice.
....
Ch. 93 Headings (arms and ammunition).
9302 -- Revolvers and pistols.
93051020 --Parts and accessories for revolvers and pistols.
Ch. 94 Headings (furniture, etc.).
940169 -- Seats with wood frames.
Ch. 95 Headings (toys, games, & sporting equipment).
950420 -- Articles and accessories for billiards
Now, let's look at the history of this amendment to the Lacy act's history.....
As the Silicon Graybeard chronicles, this amendment was buried in the 20008 Farm Bill which was passed by a Congress with democrat majorities in both houses. President Bush, a republican vetoed it.
HERE IS AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS of the voting from The Politico. Realizing that defeat was the necessary outcome simply based on numbers, Minority Leader John A. Boehner did not whip up the ranks, and 100 House republicans broke ranks with the party to vote with democrats, passing the bill 318-106. If they had maintained discipline, the bill would have still passed 208-206. Ditto for the Senate, which passed the bill 81-15. If republicans had maintained discipline, the bill would have still passed the senate, but not by a veto proof majority. This is what happens when republicans "conservaspeak" but "libervote." Democrats own this bill, and they cannot deny it. It wasn't written by republicans. OTH, "centrist" republicans own helping to pass it with a veto proof majority, even though their party's president had already vetoed the bill once, and would likely veto it again without that veto proof majority.
Now, because of that bill's passage, it is entirely, even likely possible that you and I are in possession of products in our home which could result in a jack-booted raid by the Justice Department. Democrats wrote that bill, in thrall to a few environmental activists. Democrats brought that bill up for a vote. Democrats passed it. Then a republican president vetoed it. Then democrats, along with some quisling republicans, passed it again with a veto proof majority.
Does anybody on the democrat side of the aisle seriously think that this bill is good policy? Do any of you think that it ought to be enforced the way it was against Gibson? If you are in agreement with these things, what protects you from being roughed up by a republican administration—except the republican party's greater respect for personal freedom than your own party's?" Did you, when you voted as a democrat, ever think that your chosen representatives would ram through a buried amendment that would be so thoroughly repressive of your rights, and give the Justice Department so much power to oppress you as an individual? Does it anger you? It should.
In other words, how can you continue to vote as a democrat AND continue to expect to live under a constitutional republic form of government? And if you cannot continue in these things, then what are your alternatives, and what do you propose?
Please help me to understand how you can vote for people who do this to us. All of us. Your fellow citizens.
