Monday, June 04, 2012

Rand Paul Proposes Disarming Some Federal Agents

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Prior to the American Revolution in order to enforce the Intolerable Acts, The Townsend Acts, and other unjust actions against the American Colonies, the British sent in the troops. The colonists reasoned that if the laws were just, the Crown would not need weaponry to enforce them. The colonists also realized that since the tyranny of Britain had reached a point where the colonists were being controlled by gun point, and the only way to stop the authoritarianism was for the colonists to use firearms themselves. Great Britain also understood that the colonists' only way out was armed rebellion, so they decided they were going to take the guns away from the colonists as well. The British army marched towards Concord, Massachusetts where the largest colonial armory existed, but short of their goal, in Lexington, the Americans met them. It was one thing to try to force unjust laws on the people through armed agents, but it was another for the British to come and take away the guns.

Senator Rand Paul is a student of history, and of the United States Constitution.  When the news came to him about armed agents raiding Amish farms to prevent them from selling raw milk, which is one of many different tyrannical actions the FDA engages in to force the will of the federal government on Americans, the Senator from Kentucky introduced an amendment designed to disarm Food and Drug Administration bureaucrats.

On the Senate Floor Rand Paul said of his proposal, “I think we have bigger problems in our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers’ land and telling them they can’t sell milk directly from the cow.”

The amendment would disarm the FDA, halting armed raids against farmers, and stop the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims of dietary supplements and medicinal herbs, which serve as a mercantilism favor to pharmaceutical companies.

The amendment was later defeated 78-15 (which is yet another piece of evidence supporting the need for an Article V. Convention).

According to Bob Unruh at World Net Daily, "The core of the conflict stems from the federal government’s desire to regulate the food industry from start to finish. Local growers and producers who would like to sell their products often face enforcement actions for not having a proper packaging facility or following some other regulation. A major dispute has developed over the sale of unpasteurized milk, which many people consider more healthy. Thirty states allow it but 20 don’t, and the federal government forbids it in interstate commerce."

But how do you stop government tyranny if it is that same government that is needed to address the tyranny? No amendment limiting the powers, or the fire power, of the federal government will ever succeed in the halls of Congress. Rand Paul may be a fantastic leader that understands the Constitution and is willing to fight for the freedoms of Americans, but he is surrounded by an establishment hell-bent on expanding their centralized control over the populace. The establishment claims it is for the good of the people, as they strip away liberty after liberty.

This kind of tyranny is exactly why the FDA is unconstitutional in the first place. The federal government, through the Constitution, has never been given the authority to regulate food and drugs. Even the Commerce Clause is used inaccurately in this case. The clause was created so that the federal government could be a mediator in the instances of conflict between the States over interstate commerce, not for the government to use an iron fist to control anything and everything that moves between the States. The creation of laws, and enforcing those laws, regarding food safety and drugs is a power that was reserved to the States. Each State is supposed to be responsible for these kinds of laws. Whenever you give that kind of power to a centralized system, what has happened is what happens - they take that power too far, arm themselves to enforce it, and eventually start stripping away freedoms.

According to Rand Paul, the Constitution cites four federal crimes. Through federal bureaucracies Washington has created over 4,000.

The problem is, these actions by armed FDA agents are also performed without due process, and “It can’t be an honest mistake where a businessman or woman has broken a regulation and didn’t intend to harm someone.”

Rand Paul also said on this issue, “We’ve gone too far, and we’ve abrogated the First Amendment, and what we need to do is tell the FDA that the courts have ruled that the First Amendment does apply to commercial speech, and the FDA has been overstepping their bounds.”

According to World Net Daily and Natural News it has even gotten to the point where a business in California said government health officials have begun tracking down the names and addresses of natural-foods customers and are showing up at their homes, demanding to confiscate any raw milk they might have. It has even extended to a door-to-door search by confiscation teams who threaten and intimidate raw dairy customers into surrendering raw milk products they legally purchase and own.

This is the kind of thing you would expect from Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, where the government is going around, with firearms at their sides, collecting food from people's houses.

How long before they decide your homegrown vegetables from your backyard garden needs to be confiscated? How long before they determine certain tools need to be confiscated? How long before it progresses to our guns, or our Bibles?

So how does an amendment like Rand Paul's survive the onslaught by the establishment?

We take it out of the establishment's hands. The States have the power to nullify unconstitutional laws, and refuse the unconstitutional actions of unconstitutional agencies. As for the law on the books? The people, through their States, also have the authority to hold their own convention, where delegates from the States propose amendments, and then send them out to be ratified by the State legislatures.

That may be the only way to pass an amendment like Rand Paul's.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary





Also read these articles from Political Pistachio to better understand federal authorities:

Myth #2: Federal law supersedes state law. No state can make any law contrary to any federal law.

Myth #5: A Con-Con (Article V. Convention) would allow the Constitution to be re-written.

1 comment:

JASmius said...

It's more accurate to say that the states have the *right* to nullify unconstitutional actions of the federal government - but the feds' guns give them the *power*. Which illustrates how power denuded of legality equals tyranny.