When we look at the constant assault on all that made America great -- a common language, personal liberty, the right to assemble with whom we wish, conventional marriage, the Boy Scouts, religion, etc. -- we need only look inward to those working among us. We can call them Democrats, liberals, the left, or progressives. The label is not important. By their acts, we know them as socialists and they have a plan to disassemble society as we know it.

We have written about the infamous House Progressive Caucus[1] many times before. The Progressive Caucus is the Congressional arm of the Democratic Socialists of America.[2] And, in their own words: "The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International."

Socialist International[3], of course, is an umbrella organization sponsoring world socialism. Until we caught them a few years back and publicized the information, the Progressive Caucus, DSA and SI all shared the same website, as well as socialist ideals.

This time, we'll take a little look at the Senate.

Our Democratic representatives in the Senate do not profess to be as outwardly socialist as some in the House. But, they are. They take a more "Third Way" Fabian Society[4] approach and often tend to go about it stealthily, as moderates.

However, scratch the surface of the Democratic Party leadership and there are the same five who have been there for years: The Clintons and McAuliffe, of course. But, along with the Clintons, their friends Joe Lieberman and Al From are also card-carrying proponents of "Third Way" socialism in the United States -- just like their European political cohorts Gerhard Shroeder and Tony Blair, who were Vice Presidents of Socialist International.

One stealth problem started with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)[5]. The DLC was founded in 1985. The past chairs include Bill Clinton and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. Then, the chairmanship went back to Joe Lieberman, with Al From as the ever-present Chief Executive Officer. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is identified as the current chairman, but it is really Lieberman, Clinton and From usually calling all the shots there.

The DLC "think tank" is the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)[6], which freely admits to being a "Third Way" socialist organization: "The Progressive Policy Institute is a catalyst for political change. Its mission is to modernize progressive politics and government for the Information Age. Leaving behind the stale left-right debates of the industrial era, PPI is a prolific source of 'Third Way' thinking that is shaping the emerging politics of the 21st century."

An offshoot of the DLC and PPI is The New Democrat Network(NDN).[7] The NDN was founded in 1996 by Senator Joe Lieberman, as chairman of the DLC. The NDN "acts as a political venture capital fund to create a new generation of elected officials eager to lead the U.S. and the world into the 21st century and the Internet Age. NDN is committed to electing political leaders who are capable of realizing the great promise of the new century while ensuring that no one is left behind."

NDN has about 65 members in the House and 16 in the Senate. Generally speaking, the function of the NDN is to act as the DLC's political action committee and launder soft money to favored Congressional campaign committees.

All of the above groups are closely related with DSA and SI. Some are also closely aligned with The Fabian Society. And, generally speaking, they are also aligned with the Social Democrats, USA[8], which is also a member of Socialists International.

The point is, many Democrats on Capitol Hill tend to be out-and-out socialists. They work against the original intent of the authors of our Constitution. Which means, they consciously and intentionally violate their oaths of office and should not be allowed to hold a position in any level of government.

So, when we look for the reasons our great society is changing, there you have it. It's the socialists, supported by their cheering section in the liberal media and a host of liberal judges.

As President Ronald Reagan wisely cautioned: "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people."

By instilling socialism in the United States, the Democratic Party intends to usurp our freedom. Unfortunately, there are also a few Republicans helping them.

1. <http://bernie.house.gov/pc>

2. <http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html>

3. <http://www.socialistinternational.org/main.html>

4. <http://www.fabian-society.org.uk/net.asp>

5. <http://www.ndol.org>

6. <http://www.ppionline.org/index.cfm>

7. <http://www.newdem.org/>

8. <http://www.socialdemocrats.org/>

Here's a quick question for all you Constitutional scholars: Which of the enumerated powers authorized to the federal government are described in the Bill of Rights? None, of course. Except in later amendments, regulatory powers given the federal government by the Constitution of the United States are listed in the body of the Constitution. The Second Amendment, then, is something else.

When we are unsure about the exact meaning of a section of the Constitution, the Supreme Court instructs that we should look to The Federalist Papers for clarification. In Cohens v. Virginia the Court said: "Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a complete commentary on the Constitution], and the part its authors performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed." Since then, the Federalist Papers have been quoted frequently as an authority in many Court opinions.

In The Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton argues on why a Bill of Rights was not really needed:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Indeed. Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? And, there is no power to regulate private firearms.

Yet, many people wanted this declaration of rights added to the Constitution. The promise to do so was made so as to get the Constitution ratified. And the rest is history.

It is also enlightening to read what the Representative from Virginia, James Madison, said to the first House of Representatives as he proposed the Bill of Rights. Here is part of that speech:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government."

Got that? "The people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest." Later, he says that, "all [powers] that are not granted by the constitution are retained" by the people.

If the federal government had the power to regulate personal firearms, it would be one of the powers listed in the body of the Constitution, not in the Bill of Rights. And, since there is no such power granted, the right to keep and bear arms completely and unequivocally belongs to the people. Personal arms may, however, be regulated by State government.

The Second Amendment, then, is no more than a declaration that the people already have the right to keep and bear arms.

So, what would the Founding Fathers say about the abuse of power by the federal government to grab guns? Alexander Hamilton gives us a pretty good idea in The Federalist No. 78:

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."

One other little point: State governments gave up a few powers when the central government was formed. But, the American people did not give up any of their rights. Were the people asked to sacrifice liberty, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

One does not expect honor from those operating in an illegal system. And let's face it, if our Constitution is supposed to be the "law of the land," the federal government we have now must be the most successful illegal operation in the history of this nation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said many times that when we look for an explanation of what is meant (what was intended by the authors) in the Constitution, one should turn to The Federalist Papers as an expert source for guidance. That being so, we see that we now have a government greatly different than what was intended by the Founding Fathers. It is, therefore, not a Constitutional form of government.

Our Constitution can be thought of as a contract between the people (through their States) and the central government. Federal officials cannot change provisions of that contract, or perform tasks not authorized by it, without the written consent of the people. Most officials in the federal government know perfectly well that they are operating something greatly different than the type of government authorized by the Constitution. They know they violate the Constitution every day. They just do not care to admit it.

Many public officials like to stay in government simply because they can work the system for personal gain. Most of them enjoy the title, pomp and circumstance. Many also enjoy wielding as much power over others as they can get.

All that being said, it is also no surprise that the usurpers of liberty on Capitol Hill become totally upset when anyone rocks their boat a little by asking them to take an honorable position on a matter that could, conceivably, impact on their chance for reelection. These are, after all, people disposed to milking the system, not doing what is right. We have already determined they do not intend to do what is right because no more than a small handful of them ever demands a return to a Constitutional form of government.

For instance, federal power is limited to the specific grant of enumerated powers in the Constitution and does not reach mundane questions of criminal law. No matter how worthy the purpose of a given federal statute, it remains invalid if it exceeds the constitutionally proscribed bounds. Which means, of course, that such things as gun, drug, labor, and environmental laws are inherently unconstitutional and only applicable on federal property.

Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia, (1821), noted that Congress had "no general right to punish murder committed within any of the States," and that it was "clear that congress cannot punish felonies generally." The Court's only qualification was that Congress could enact such laws for places where it enjoyed plenary powers -- for instance, over the District of Columbia. Thus, whatever effect ordinary murders, or robbery, or gun possession might have on interstate commerce (or on any other subject of federal concern) was irrelevant to the question of congressional power.

Of course, lawmakers will say that these laws are enacted pursuant to Congress's power to "regulate commerce among the several states." But, according to the Founding Fathers, that is baloney. The duty was to guarantee the free flow of commerce between the states, not to determine what can be marketed and how.

Back when Newt led the Republican takeover of the House, we were told that they would take the time to review all the present laws and regulations with an eye to deleting as many as possible. That sounded like an excellent idea back then and still does today. So, perhaps we had better light a fire under them to get it started.

After all, they have been passing laws, rules and regulations for a long time. That's enough, already! Now it is time to clean out the dead wood in the forest of federal law. Else, we will have to start cleaning out some dead wood in Congress.

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh, GR Force and FRON, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron328.htm. Revised 12-5-04. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.