tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post7253880747734347032..comments2024-03-08T07:09:46.527-07:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Tyranny, The One-War Mirror, and the Criminal Syndicate Called the ATFWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-61931160335032145152008-03-31T22:09:00.000-06:002008-03-31T22:09:00.000-06:00Just a word of support to the regular Griggorian c...Just a word of support to the regular Griggorian commentators like my fellow Evangelical Christian Dixie Dog, the indispensable MOT and the always wise and provocative Liberranter, please continue adding your thoughts to this forum. There are nearly as anticipated as William Braveheart's Pro Libertate essays. Keep writing your insightful comments. You're all increasing my knowledge. Thanks!<BR/><BR/>Proverbs 27:17<BR/>"Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-71986954075582615582008-03-31T21:53:00.000-06:002008-03-31T21:53:00.000-06:00If a nation collapses because of excessive and unc...If a nation collapses because of excessive and uncontrolled moral decay, why keep it together through the external controls of a totalitarian and lethal police state? <BR/><BR/>Just let it die. No where is it written that nations and cultures must continue indefinitely. If it's time to die because a nation's citizenry have discarded all internal restraints to their depraved appetites, let it die and allow a remnant to form something anew. How does erecting a deadly totalitarian dictatorship, which would compound the prevailing moral and social anarchy with additional misery wrought by the arbitrary State enacting mass detentions and even implementing democide? It would only achieve the artificial and forced unity forged through the intense, unrelenting, and murderous State. How can an external controlling mechanism as brutal, amoral and lethal as the omnipotent State going to help a decadent and morally sick society? The crumbling nation's moral and social anarchy may claim hundreds of lives, maybe even thousands, but the State intervenes and "cleanses" millions. If a nation is appearing to reach its zenith with immorality running rampant sufficiently enough that people know the end is near, why prolong the misery and increase the pain with more untold deaths courtesy of an elite-controlled State who really care nothing of the people's condition and only desire to retain their positions of power? Pssst.....Sometimes these political, corporate and banking elites help to stimulate the social anarchy that provides such a golden pretext for the consolidation of absolute power. Just ask Michael Levine, formerly of the DEA, about the little 1979 party he and some CIA spooks had in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Think about what was written here. Would it be better to attempt to survive through the ensuing national anarchy and the nation's inevitable collapse or endure the collapse followed also by a massive police state with its attendant mass detentions and executions? I submit let the nation die and let a remnant form new social bonds in the creation of a new nation. You've heard of market corrections; this is a socio-political correction.<BR/>-RWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-79002588380949253912008-03-31T19:10:00.000-06:002008-03-31T19:10:00.000-06:00Anonymous at 7:54 AM, Joseph Sobran has followed t...Anonymous at 7:54 AM, <BR/><BR/>Joseph Sobran has followed the logic of human nature and reality to its rational conclusions. He is now an anarchist who is also a Christian (a Catholic Christian.) http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sobran-j1.html<BR/><BR/>One might well ask, based on his article, "What individual, or group of individuals, without the power to take other people's money at gunpoint or threat thereof, coupled with the power (not right) to force people to fight for them, could possibly have the means or incentive to slaughter 200,000,000 people in a single century?" The answer is: only a government. Not an anarchy, where the guiding rule is based on common sense: no one may initiate violence against any other individual.<BR/><BR/>As for e. david quamann and the Whiskey "Rebellion?" Here's what Jefferson had to say on the subject: "It has been impossible to produce a single fact of insurrection unless that term be entirely confounded with occasional riots, and when the ordinary process of law had been resisted in a few special cases but by no means generally, nor had its effect been duly tried. But it answered the favorite purposes of strengthening government and increasing public debt; and therefore an insurrection was announced and proclaimed and armed against, but could never be found." and again, "What is equally astonishing is that by the pomp of reports, proclamations, armies &c. the mind of the legislature itself was so fascinated as never to have asked where, when, and by whom this insurrection has been produced? The original of this scene in another country [Great Britain] was calculated to excite the indignation of those whom it could not impose on: the mimicry of it here is too humiliating to excite any feeling but shame." -A letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, May 26, 1795.<BR/><BR/>Jefferson then made sure that the whiskey excise tax was destroyed when he got into the presidency.<BR/><BR/>What is taxation but forcing other people, through violence or threat thereof, to subsidize the policies some people would like to see enacted? What is voting but choosing the person who will implement these policies using money collected by force or the threat thereof? Taxation is robbery. I pay taxes, but not because I "owe" them. Only because it is worth it, for now, to tolerate the injustice, for fear of a greater injustice, were I to fail to pay taxes. <BR/><BR/> -Sans AuthoritasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-75029333576846275252008-03-31T17:45:00.000-06:002008-03-31T17:45:00.000-06:00Liberranter,1. You only quoted the police.2. They ...Liberranter,<BR/><BR/>1. You only quoted the police.<BR/>2. They couldn't let the man finish the cup of coffee that they sold to him? What a ripoff.<BR/>3. There's nothing about him protesting or handing out leaflets in the mall. From the reports I've read, he was kicked out specifically and solely because of the shirt.<BR/>http://www.newsday.com/news/local/suffolk/ny-lizirk0331,0,3943746.storyChristopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300064299643040666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-82157121667409045682008-03-31T16:16:00.000-06:002008-03-31T16:16:00.000-06:00"Our government was legally delegated the authorit..."Our government was legally delegated the authority to seek the means to: "insure domestic Tranquility", and "promote the general Welfare". A nation of alcoholics, as well as drug and sex addicts will hardly achieve those ends." - EDQ<BR/><BR/>The General Welfare clause arguably was intended to prohibit pork barrel legislation (i.e. appropriations for local projects), rather than to grant carte blanche for Congress to legislate morality (which is what it has mutated into).<BR/><BR/>If that's what they meant, the Founders should have just said so. Even after making allowance for 220 years of language drift, parts of the Constitution seem rather badly drafted and ambiguous. For instance, what was the idea (if any) in granting Congress the power to coin money, while prohibiting the STATES from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts? They neglected to place the same prudent restraint on Congress, which proceeded to authorize the Federal Reserve to make fiat currency legal tender. So much for preventing a return of 1780s "not worth a Continental" inflation -- you blew it, goofballs.<BR/><BR/>I really can't discern when reading the Federalist Papers whether the authors were sincere, or were engaged in a gigantic hoax. In any case, their expectations that the 'federal' government would remain subservient to the states were utterly mistaken. An explicit secession clause, as the ultimate check on federal usurpation, would have changed history. Jay, Madison and (in particular) Hamilton realized that, I reckon. And chose to exclude it. Hello, Lincoln; hello, Sherman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-64254454420321412792008-03-31T13:41:00.000-06:002008-03-31T13:41:00.000-06:00Police said in a release last night that Zirkel wa...<I>Police said in a release last night that Zirkel was handing out anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers and that mall security told him to stop and turn his shirt inside out. Zirkel refused to turn his shirt inside out and wouldn’t leave, police said. Security placed him on “civilian arrest” and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel passively resisted attempts to bring him to a police car, the release said.</I><BR/><BR/>Somewhat off topic, but I felt I just had to comment.<BR/><BR/>As much as I find the actions of Smith Haven Mall to be disturbing, I cannot argue that the mall's ownership/management was exercising a fundamental right of private property ownership. While I certainly support Mr. Zirkel's decision to wear whatever article of clothing he chooses, with whatever message it might bear, no matter how offensive some might find it, I must also say that it is well within the right of the ownership/management of Smith Haven Mall to eject him from their property if they find his message or his speech objectionable. (I disagree, however, with the mall security guards' decision to attempt to make him remove or reverse his shirt. They had no right or authority to assault his person, only to order him to leave the mall premises). <BR/><BR/>Mr. Zirkel would be better served passing out his leaflets on genuinely <B><I>public</I></B> property such as in front of a local city hall, police headquarters, or in a public square or park where his 1st Amendment right could not be legally abridged. I would also recommend that he and his supporters organize a campaign urging anti-war, freedom-loving citizens to consider boycotting Smith Haven Mall and take their money elsewhere, preferably to a shopping center more receptive to (or at least tolerant of) their viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>One of the things we as libertarians often find difficult to remember and respect is that private property rights are sacred, even for those who disagree with us. While we may wholeheartedly disagree with Smith Haven Mall's means of expressing its disapproval of Mr. Zirkel's anti-war actions, we cannot help but agree that, at least as long as it does not employ violence to do so, it has every right to decide who may and may not make use of its property, for whatever purpose.liberranterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00555275410576294081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-53107682271469107602008-03-31T11:23:00.000-06:002008-03-31T11:23:00.000-06:00Latest update on the incompetency of ATF goons. ht...Latest update on the incompetency of ATF goons. <BR/><BR/>http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2008/03/30.html#a2775Treyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11799366441072101723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-30528990666351211202008-03-31T10:37:00.000-06:002008-03-31T10:37:00.000-06:00anonymous @ 8:57PMI agree with most of your post a...anonymous @ 8:57PM<BR/><BR/>I agree with most of your post and can even understand this sentiment:<BR/><BR/><I>But prohibition laws against vices will not change the inner man. That requires a spiritual solution, not a political one. If a nation becomes mired in an other-wordly pantheism; for example, as in India where neglect and human suffering are widespread, or in a nation steeped in abject secular hedonism, all the vice laws on the books wouldn't prevent the moral collapse of a nation.</I><BR/><BR/>True, it's a spiritual condition and the moral collapse of the nation in question is imminent. Nevertheless, when the people themselves cannot control themselves adequately, the government will pass whimsical laws (that otherwise wouldn't likely be on the books with a more vigilent, knowledgeable, non dependency-minded, moral populace) to restrain the people instead.<BR/><BR/>Try looking at it from another angle. Many people who have little to no self-control, as is certainly true in today's America or in any secular/pagan society for that matter, are ONLY effectively restrained by laws and regulations. Sure, even laws don't restrain ALL of those kind of folk, but it does restrain most where there exists no <I>internal</I> restraints. Have you never heard anyone say something like, "Hey, I wouldn't do that, man, it's illegal!" or "If I didn't have to worry about goin' to jail, I'd certainly do that."? A person who says that demonstrates in my mind right away, without even having to clarify it, that they are ONLY restrained from doing certain act(s) in question, not because it's harmful, immoral, or otherwise damaging to their physical or emotional being, but merely because it's illegal and they could go to jail. Oh my!<BR/><BR/><I>In 1880, the U.S. didn't have hardly any prohibition laws against vices and yet the nation seemed to be functioning quite well.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, but the overall culture of the 1880s was not anywhere near as decadent, depraved, and effeminate as the current culture.<BR/><BR/>Just to be crystal clear, I don't support this kind of arrangement, either, but historically speaking that's just the way it is. I would actually be a staunch libertarian if ALL prohibitions were rescinded, including those pertaining to all forms of discrimination and allow freedom of association to flourish. Ah, but that won't happen. I hear people all the time yacking about the "War on Drugs" or "War on Prostitution" but nothing on the "War on Christianity" or the "War on Tobacco" or the "War on Guns" (with a few exceptions). I hear nothing on black racism, only white racism, etc., etc.<BR/><BR/>Here's some nuggets of wisdom:<BR/><BR/><I>If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.</I> - Thomas Jefferson<BR/><BR/>Those who are ignorant of what true freedom is and, by extension, unbridled <I>by self</I> will be so bridled by the State and possess little if any true freedom. "Freeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!" chants by the ignorant are meaningless and without substance. It's pure emotionalism; admittedly, it all sure sounds good and tickles the ears, though, but that's about it.<BR/><BR/><I>We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, orgallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. <B>Our Constitution</B> was made only for a moral and religious people. It <B>is wholly inadequate</B> for the government of any other.</I> - John Adams (emphasis mine)<BR/><BR/>It might have to be clarified about the "we have no government..." above: WE have no government, meaning OUR constitutional republican system (NOT ANY and ALL governments in existence) is incapable of contending with unbridled human passions. And so it is; ergo, we are faced with a gradually increasing totalitarian system to replace it that CAN restrain human passions....ANY and ALL passions, that is, the good, the bad, the ugly. And so it is; ergo, we are continually losing our true freedom as a consequence because <I>our constitutional republican system can't work</I> in such an environment. It's ONLY adequate for a self-governing, moral populace.<BR/><BR/><I>Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.</I> - William Penn<BR/><BR/>Speaks for itself. Internal control by self (via the Holy Spirit and our conscience) or external control by tyrants eventually. It's just that simple.<BR/><BR/><I>Character is much easier kept than recovered.</I> - Thomas Paine The American Crisis, no. 13 (1783)<BR/><BR/>I take this as once your character has been compromised in the public arena, it's near impossible to recover it in the public arena and the attendant public trust. That's not to say God won't rebuild someone inside and accept them, but that's not how I see this particular quote.<BR/><BR/><I>Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.</I> - Benjamin Franklin<BR/><BR/>Again, speaks volumes for itself. Look around our society today and this becomes increasingly quite clear in my mind anyway :(.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I'll throw this out:<BR/><BR/><I>3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith. 5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.<BR/>8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.</I> - I Timothy 1:3-11 (NKJV)<BR/><BR/>I think too many Christians today, in fact, DO "...give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith...from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm."<BR/><BR/>Oh well, as is often said, there is nothing new under the sun.dixiedoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-88444787583765657282008-03-31T09:51:00.000-06:002008-03-31T09:51:00.000-06:00Thanks for the heads up, Will.From Horsley's page ...Thanks for the heads up, Will.<BR/><BR/>From Horsley's page at the Gun Owners Foundation website:<BR/><BR/><I>These violations typically are abbreviating the city of Twin Falls as T.F. What would we do without such astute BATFE inspectors who catch such sneaky efforts to evade the law! Seriously, such a stupid objection is <B>not even written in any BATFE regulations</B> -- because they have <B>no written procedures</B> for dealers to follow.<BR/><BR/><B>Written procedures</B> would make it much harder to play "gotcha." BATFE would have to behave like a real law enforcement agency and look for real bad guys.</I><BR/><BR/>This is actually common, unfortunately. I complained about the same thing when I worked for a contractor at a military base back in 2000-2001. There were few precise <I>written</I> SOPs so they could, basically on a whim, cite you for violations and even cancel your contract if you violated a certain "regulation of the moment" as I called it. I hated it. They don't write this stuff down so that YOU don't have any real recourse when you're being cited and be able to claim that you were following the regs <I>as written</I>.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if you're a private gun dealer and it's the BATFE you're dealing with in this light, it's an entirely different matter. It can mean your livelihood itself is targeted as Mr. Horsley has known now since 2000. The problem is that the BATFE has endless resources (the people's taxes) and private entities have no such luxury.dixiedoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-2899621845942324622008-03-31T08:54:00.000-06:002008-03-31T08:54:00.000-06:00MOT,I am one Evangelical Christian who agrees with...MOT,<BR/>I am one Evangelical Christian who agrees with you, but I do concede to the many points EDQ raises -but with qualifications. I see no specific enumerated power contained in the Constitution's seven articles that suggests the central government has the authority to establish federal prohibition laws against alcohol and drug consumption or the federal criminalization of any other vice for that matter. It's a state and local matter. As for the Constitution, it isn't sacrosanct. It could be better. Even the paleo-conservative Joseph Sobran, hardly a Lysander Spooner disciple or a paleo-libertarian, now recognizes that the Articles of Confederation would have been much better than the U.S. Constitution, which he argued was pregnant with the seed of centralism. Patrick Henry, a devout Christian, also did not care too much with the ratification of the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. Some notable flaws- I think WNG would agree with- are the Constitution's eminent domain powers and suspension of habeas corpus' protections under certain conditions. <BR/>I think the TV series 'Jericho' is on to something. The United "State" of America should be broken up into at least three independent states -the North, the South and the West. I kinda like that idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-18841671847892052802008-03-31T03:44:00.000-06:002008-03-31T03:44:00.000-06:00Source: NewsDay An 80-year-old church deacon was r...Source: NewsDay<BR/> <BR/>An 80-year-old church deacon was removed from the Smith Haven Mall yesterday in a wheelchair and arrested by police for refusing to remove a T-shirt protesting the Iraq War.<BR/><BR/>Police said that Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, was disturbing shoppers at the Lake Grove mall with his T-shirt, which had what they described as “graphic anti-war images.” Zirkel, a deacon at Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal in Wyandanch, said his shirt had the death tolls of American military personnel and Iraqis - 4,000 and 1 million - and the words “Dead” and “Enough.” The shirt also has three blotches resembling blood splatters.<BR/><BR/>Police said in a release last night that Zirkel was handing out anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers and that mall security told him to stop and turn his shirt inside out. Zirkel refused to turn his shirt inside out and wouldn’t leave, police said. Security placed him on “civilian arrest” and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel passively resisted attempts to bring him to a police car, the release said.<BR/><BR/>But Zirkel said he was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife Marie, 77, and several others when police and mall security officers approached and demanded they remove their anti-war T-shirts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-1829164888684011242008-03-31T02:16:00.000-06:002008-03-31T02:16:00.000-06:00gents,i think what we get out of the supreme court...gents,<BR/><BR/>i think what we get out of the supreme court decision will be far worse, if not support/authorize, what is planned after the november elections. i think we need to all start pricing PVC pipe and desicant.<BR/><BR/>rickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-85302653969190181482008-03-30T23:19:00.000-06:002008-03-30T23:19:00.000-06:00Mot -"The federal and State governments are in fac...Mot -<BR/><BR/>"The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents." <BR/><BR/>- James Madison, Federalist No. 46.<BR/><BR/>The United States Constitution was ratified by the People of that day - NOT the government. We The People ARE the "final", "legitimate", "supreme", (when clothed in our Constitution), and "ULTIMATE" authority. We are in the situation that we are in because PEOPLE STOPPED HOLDING OUR SERVANTS FEET TO THE FIRE.<BR/><BR/>"[As to] the question whether, by the laws of nature, one generation of men can, by any act of theirs, bind those which are to follow them? I say, by the laws of nature, there being between generation and generation, as between nation and nation, no other obligatory law." <BR/><BR/>- Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814. ME 14:67.<BR/><BR/>"The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war."<BR/><BR/>- Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651<BR/> <BR/>We ALL see what our [supposed] SERVANTS are doing. And, we were AMPLY WARNED by the men that framed our form of government of the dangers that lay ahead. But, we were more concerned with wine, women and song than doing our civic duty. And now we are paying the price for our folly. Unfortunately so will our posterity.<BR/><BR/>"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine<BR/><BR/>WE were warned, yet WE let it happen. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is a long known MAXIM, that We The People, both past and present ignored. So then, whose fault is it REALLY?<BR/><BR/>When the morals of a people degenerate, their government becomes despotic in order to enforce rule. Again I ask, whose fault is it REALLY?E. David Quammenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408328085937782350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-7007721358525484492008-03-30T23:01:00.000-06:002008-03-30T23:01:00.000-06:00Anonymous - Agreed 110%. Which of course leads us ...Anonymous - Agreed 110%. Which of course leads us to one of the whole intended purposes of Amendment II. And, why We The People need to get the perverse usurpations overturned. We either rouse the same spirit that moved our forebears to action. Or, we are going to be enslaved/socialized as most of the rest of the world is at present. We ALL see the writing on the wall, (with the exception of the blind sheeple). But, seeing and doing something about what is seen, is a whole different story....E. David Quammenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408328085937782350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-53498620987261803222008-03-30T22:57:00.000-06:002008-03-30T22:57:00.000-06:00"Our government was legally delegated the authorit..."Our government was legally delegated the authority"... EDQ<BR/><BR/>Now wait a minute there. This authority was delegated to themselves by themselves from the beginning. Farmer Tom out plowing the fields had no say as to the form of this "government" or the ever increasing burdens these mere pieces of paper, many claim as being the work of divine authorship, would forever lay on the people. The majority of the citizenry didn't have any say or knowledge one way or the other as to what was being wrought in their name. "We The People"... my eye! Nor should generations unborn thereafter be bound to this "contract" or tasked to forfeit their wealth to support it in perpetuity while the authors have written loopholes to excuse themselves from any accountability. I find Christian statists just can't get enough of government "big sticks" to bully and bludgeon undesirables.<BR/><BR/>Lysander Spooner put it quite plainly.<BR/><BR/><I>"Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exis" </I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-72107063119096592332008-03-30T21:57:00.000-06:002008-03-30T21:57:00.000-06:00EDQ, Yes, vices do cause moral decay, and the mor...EDQ,<BR/> Yes, vices do cause moral decay, and the moral foundation of our Republic is based on the Judeo-Christian ethos -as I stated. But prohibition laws against vices will not change the inner man. That requires a spiritual solution, not a political one. If a nation becomes mired in an other-wordly pantheism; for example, as in India where neglect and human suffering are widespread, or in a nation steeped in abject secular hedonism, all the vice laws on the books wouldn't prevent the moral collapse of a nation. Remember, our Constitution was intended for a moral and religious people; it is entirely inadequate for the governance of any other. Just because the Constitution allows for the Congress to "...lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.." doesn't mean they have a mandate to tax us to death. The concept of federalism works well in that it provides the opportunity for the states and localities to establish their own edicts based on their own local social mores and thus would also maintain local accountability without involving Leviathan-on-the-Potomac. The absence of vice laws will not create a nation of alcoholics, drug addicts or sex addicts. In 1880, the U.S. didn't have hardly any prohibition laws against vices and yet the nation seemed to be functioning quite well. Yes, a nation will suffer social decay and collapse if immorality becomes rampant, but I don't wish to give the Power Elite any pretext over exaggerated "crises" to erect a totalitarian police state. According to Dr. R.J. Rummel, totalitarianism in the 20th century killed close to 400 million innocent people. Vices didn't do that; the State did. My Bible tells me that the eschatological end-time scenario does not depict a "Mad Max" styled global anarchy, but an absolute global, panopticon surveillance state and global totalitarian dictatorship run by a frontman of an oligarchy bent on caesar worship. My main concern is the State, and its deadly abuses of power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-16687785173761743802008-03-30T13:53:00.000-06:002008-03-30T13:53:00.000-06:00And, I certainly hope that no one considers that I...And, I certainly hope that no one considers that I'm in support of ANY of the ATF's actions by my previous comments. <BR/><BR/>I'm of the opinion that they have NO constitutionally legal delegated authority over firearms PERIOD. Just the opposite being the case; they are EXPRESSLY RESTRAINED from it. That such a bureau, as far as concerning firearms go, is an usurpation and a tyrannical exercise of power.<BR/><BR/>The government DOES however, have the Constitutional authority to tax and provide for collection of those taxes, (within reason). But NOT on a Constitutionally secured right that has the prohibition of "shall NOT be infringed" prefixed to it.E. David Quammenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408328085937782350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-65325760216330881512008-03-30T13:40:00.000-06:002008-03-30T13:40:00.000-06:00Anonymous - "The first question is answered at onc...Anonymous - <BR/><BR/>"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the TRANSCENDENT Law of Nature and of Nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."<BR/><BR/>- James Madison, Federalist #43.<BR/><BR/>And, to both you and David Codrea:<BR/><BR/>Our government was legally delegated the authority to seek the means to: "insure domestic Tranquility", and "promote the general Welfare". A nation of alcoholics, as well as drug and sex addicts will hardly achieve those ends. For, those vices turn us into a third rate nation, as we are quickly becoming now. All one has to do is examine the fall of Rome, and other once great nations to see the truth of that historical reality. <BR/><BR/>Taxing vices is certainly much better than some of the other alternatives. Vices cause moral, physical, mental and spiritual decay. Not only to the person caught in the grasp of them. But, generally to all of those to whom they have relation to. And, the adverse effects of using them cause financial strains on society which effect everyone. As well as: <BR/><BR/>"A little leaven leavens the whole lump."<BR/><BR/>The rest of us shouldn't have to bear the whole burden of paying the price for others exercising their idea of "freedom". If you want to play, then you had better be ready to pay.E. David Quammenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408328085937782350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-14587274740558356222008-03-30T13:08:00.000-06:002008-03-30T13:08:00.000-06:00David Codrea - Perhaps you should have a look at t...David Codrea - Perhaps you should have a look at the act which caused the "Whiskey Rebellion". As well as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Congress DOES have the enumerated authority to levy duties and taxes. If We The People don't agree wih it, then we have a right to seek redress.E. David Quammenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408328085937782350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-21959574351072088922008-03-30T00:58:00.000-06:002008-03-30T00:58:00.000-06:00One thing I remember clearly about the Waco traged...One thing I remember clearly about the Waco tragedy was the fact that the TV crews were there from the beginning filming the whole sad charade. Now what does that tell you? Simple. It was a staged media event gone wrong. Cameras, lights... Action! Except someone forgot to tell the Davidians it was all an act and their part was to lay down and take it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-81109125529402813322008-03-29T21:47:00.000-06:002008-03-29T21:47:00.000-06:00David Codrea's comment is right on. If there are t...David Codrea's comment is right on. <BR/>If there are to be any vice laws on the books, -which I would not support- they should never extend beyond the state level. This way, the virtues of federalism can be enjoyed by all, just as the founders intended. <BR/><BR/>Too many Evangelical Christians believe that we need to employ either the theonomist position, which includes such practices as the stoning of disobedient children and the forced marriage between a rapist and his victim, or the equally untenable dispensationalist position, which holds that if any of God's OT laws are not also duly noted in the New Testament it is morally permissible. Both of these models prove inadequate as we are not ancient OT Israel, nor should the NT be regarded as an exhaustive resource for the determination of legal precepts. The Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, provides us with a moral foundation and is our primary indispensable guide in the formation of much of our nation's legal bulwarks..... Well, it used to be anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-48251993159565658292008-03-29T11:15:00.000-06:002008-03-29T11:15:00.000-06:00Alcohol tobacco and firearms! Who's bringing the c...Alcohol tobacco and firearms! Who's bringing the chips?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-56520137564011494452008-03-29T10:03:00.000-06:002008-03-29T10:03:00.000-06:00EDQ: Not unless you can show where vice falls with...EDQ: Not unless you can show where vice falls within the enumerated delegated purview of the fedgov, otherwise, it's just another unConstitutional power grab and ingress point for further abuse and corruption.<BR/><BR/>Besides which, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments come into play here, too. I'd argue I do have a right to my single malt and maduro, which I'll probably enjoy tonight, it being Saturday and all, and anyone infringing on that is committing a criminal act of aggression, whether the majority agrees or not. As for porno, I'm not smart enough to draw a line much beyond that which employs minors or unwilling participants--but I'm a bad judge--I think most of what I see at supermarket checkout counters in terms of "womens' magazines" and tabloids qualifies, and I respond by not buying it.<BR/><BR/>Funny thing about free will. We actually have the capacity to result in our own damnation. Our job is to choose for ourselves, not to impose our choices on others.David Codreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13836716551269849012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-59408734829821497402008-03-29T05:31:00.000-06:002008-03-29T05:31:00.000-06:00In all REALITY, instead of A.T.F., it should be: A...In all REALITY, instead of A.T.F., it should be: <BR/><BR/>A.T.P.; <BR/><BR/>Alcohol <BR/><BR/>Tobacco <BR/><BR/>& Pornography <BR/><BR/>For, "Firearms" are NOT a 'vice', but a Right....E. David Quammenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16408328085937782350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-16066489090366537252008-03-28T19:34:00.000-06:002008-03-28T19:34:00.000-06:00ineffabelle -- blessings to you, as well, and kudo...ineffabelle -- blessings to you, as well, and kudos on a <I>really</I> cool cyber-handle!William N. Grigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.com