What Will Happen to Eric Holder?

“The Buck Stops Here” — Harry S. Truman, 33^rd President of the United States

There are several things I admired Harry Truman for during his 7 years in the White House. I liked his institution of the Marshal Plan for the reconstruction of Europe as a bulwark against the expansion of Soviet Communism. I like his Executive Order 9981, in July 1948, desegregating and requiring equal opportunity in the Armed Forces after conservative Barry Goldwater had fully integrated the Arizona Air National Guard. I certainly liked his decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan to hasten the end of WWII. And I liked his support of the Berlin Airlift in order to defeat the Soviet blockade of the access routes to the divided city. The Berlin Airlift was one of Truman's great foreign policy successes; it significantly aided his election campaign in 1948.

Of course there were many things that Truman did that I did like such as the Korean War and his intervention into the steel and coal strikes.

But I will always remember Harry Truman for his open, honest, and sometimes confrontational relationship with the press. One specific instance has stuck in my mind for 63 years.

On December 6, 1950, music critic Paul Hume wrote a critical review of a concert by Truman’s daughter Margaret:

“Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality ... [she] cannot sing very well ... is flat a good deal of the time—more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years ... has not improved in the years we have heard her ... [and] still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish.”

Well Mr. Hume’s comments did not sit very well with “give em hell Harry” so Truman wrote a scathing response as any loving father should do:

“I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an 'eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.' It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.”

Truman was criticized by many for the letter. However, he pointed out that he wrote it as a loving father and not as the president. I look at a brutally honest for a politician. It was certainly not the usual rope-a-dope you get from the likes of Barack Obama. The criticisms were mainly from the press. As a high school student at the time I can recall no one in my circle of family of friends of the family taking the side of Mr. Hume. Even my father, who was not a fan of Truman, gave him good marks for his honesty and candidness.

Today is a far cry from the days of Harry Truman. We now have politicians, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder who believe the buck stops with the building janitor. They spin, obfuscate, and downright lie to protect their image and jobs. They claim responsibility yet take no accountability for their actions or decisions. And unlike in the days of Truman there are many in the press who allow them to do so.

It must be nice being a Democratic president. No matter what you do – even investigate the press – there’s always someone in the media willing to defend it. The latest defense comes from Reuters media columnist Jack Shafer.

Shafer wrote a May 24 piece raising the question: “What war on the press?” His strange summary point was that “all this legal battering of the press, while real, hardly rises to the level of war.” Perhaps he wouldn’t consider it a war unless Obama started treating journalists like some third-world dictator.

In rebuttal Dan Gainor writes on Fox News.com Obama’s ‘war on journalism’ just a skirmish, argues Reuters media critic:

“The longtime media critic began with three massive paragraphs and nearly 400 words detailing how everybody from the lefties at The New York Times, Washington Post and Slate to libertarians at Reason or the Post’s quasi-conservative Jennifer Rubin all agreed “President Barack Obama has declared war on the press.”

Everybody but Shafer, that is.

Shafer’s 1,400-word half-hearted defense focused on “language in the affidavit for search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen’s emails,” because the document called it a “criminal offense.”

The column then relied on an explanation from a George Washington University Law School professor who said that expression was “not a prelude to a prosecution.” So you can call journalism “criminal,” as long as you don’t prosecute today.

The rest of the piece agreed with journalists on most every point – but with finesse of a curveball pitcher nibbling at the corners.

Shafer was never willing to completely admit things are as bad as the 10 separate news organizations he mentions claim. His nuances were reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s classic “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

Shafer went on to admit that “there has been” a leak crackdown, but claimed it was mostly among bureaucrats and not journalists. He even noted that his colleagues compare the “tightlipped” administration to an information “black hole.”

Then we have Fox News’ Juan Williams, the poster boy for cognitive dissonance, stating:

“In the probe of the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity the Bush administration also asked its own officials to sign letters permitting journalist to break the confidentiality of source-reporter relationships and reveal their sources.

But the Obama administration became the first to cross a very dangerous line when it listed a journalist, Rosen, as a “co-conspirator” in an affidavit in order to get a judge’s permission to go after his emails and cell phone records.

In all previous cases the government used its prosecutorial powers to go after the people doing the leaking or passing along information from a government source.

Rosen may have set off alarms for prosecutors by using a phony name and secret email address for his contact with his state department source. But a supervisor at FBI or among prosecutors – even the judge who approved the subpoena of Rosen’s information – needed to recognize the difference between a legitimate, scoop-hungry news reporter and a potential spy or terrorist.

That failure constitutes a chilling assault on freedom of the press.

Yes, there is a national security factor. The government obviously did not want North Korea to know that it had infiltrated its nuclear operations. But the problem is not the American press but government employees who decided to reveal the information despite their oath not to do so.

Arguably, even obsessive prosecution of sources can be a problem. The Obama administration has prosecuted six leakers. That is the most in history.”

…

“To be fair, Attorney General Eric Holder is slowly beginning to recognize the grievous errors by the investigators and prosecutors who sent him the affidavit listing Rosen as a “co-conspirator.” And he seems to know now that by trusting that the FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers had a strong basis for their suspicions about Rosen he made a mistake in signing the affidavit.

In an interview with the Daily Beast website on Tuesday, Holder said “While both of these cases were handled within the law and according to Justice Department guidelines, they are reminders of the unique role the news media plays in our democratic system, and signal that both our laws and guidelines need to be updated.”

He added: “This is an opportunity for the department to consider how we strike the right balance between the interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press.”

…

“The question of how we as a country (and our legal system) deal with leakers of classified information is an unresolved and urgent problem. This is a special problem that involves the kind of life and death decisions that attend to national security. It should be kept separate from those leakers who leak to score political points, embarrass political officials personally, or reveal government negligence or corruption.

The government often makes the mistake of lumping such items in with national security when it chooses what to classify and what not to.

But if these scandals have shown us anything it is that in this post 9/11 era the nation needs to resolve this specific issue once and for all.”

Williams just can’t get off this national security spin in his protection of Holder. He can’t seem to come to terms that is was not national security that motivated Holder to personally review and sign off on the subpoena for Rosen’s e-mail records. He argues this national security tune over and over again even though the Justice Department had to shop three judges to get their warrant based on a criminal action they tell us now they had no intention of prosecuting. I guess if you take that course you can get a warrant for anybody on anything. Williams continually argues, even against all common sense, the Holder is the best person to investigate Holder.

Top Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee openly challenged Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday over his testimony two weeks ago in which he claimed to be unaware of any "potential prosecution" of the press, despite knowing about an investigation that targeted a Fox News reporter.

Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, (R-VA), and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., (R-WI)., voiced "great concern" in a letter to Holder. They asked a litany of questions about the department's dealings with the press, and pointedly alleged that the Fox News case "contradicts" his testimony at a May 15 hearing.

"It is imperative that the committee, the Congress, and the American people be provided a full and accurate account of your involvement," they wrote.

The letter comes a day after the committee confirmed it was looking into Holder's testimony. Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, Holder insisted that "the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material" is not something he was involved in or knew about.

But days later, it emerged that the Justice Department obtained access to the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen -- after filing an affidavit that accused him of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in the leak of sensitive material regarding North Korea. Rosen was never charged, and never prosecuted. But he was effectively accused of violating the federal Espionage Act.

"The media reports and statements issued by the Department regarding the search warrants for Mr. Rosen's emails appear to be at odds with your sworn testimony before the Committee," Goodlatte and Sensenbrenner wrote in the letter Wednesday. They did not accuse Holder of committing perjury, but noted he was "under oath."

Among other questions, they asked Holder how he could claim to have never heard of the potential prosecution of the press. And they asked him to clarify whether he "personally approved" the search warrant request.

The top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, said Tuesday, though, he thinks Holder "was forthright and did not mislead the Committee."

"Certainly, there are policy disagreements as to how the First Amendment should apply to these series of leak investigations being conducted by the Justice Department, and that is and should be an area for the committee to consider. However, there is no need to turn a policy disagreement into allegations of misconduct," he said.

Among other questions, they asked Holder how he could claim to have never heard of the potential prosecution of the press. And they asked him to clarify whether he "personally approved" the search warrant request.

The top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, said Tuesday, though, he thinks Holder "was forthright and did not mislead the Committee."

Meanwhile, one of the country's most prominent liberal legal scholars called Wednesday for Holder to be "fired," joining the growing list of left-leaning pundits slamming his department's pursuit of journalists' phone and email records.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney and law professor at George Washington University, hammered Holder in a USA Today column today. He charged that Holder has "supervised a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process," aided by Democrats who looked the other way.

But in the wake of the reporter records scandal, Democrats are starting to join with Republicans in questioning whether Holder continues to be the right man to lead the Department of Justice in President Obama's second term.

Turley, in his column, referenced a recent call by the Republican National Committee chairman for Holder's resignation. "Unlike the head of the RNC, I am neither a Republican nor conservative, and I believe Holder should be fired," Turley wrote.

While Democrats largely defended Holder when his department came under fire for the botched anti-gunrunning sting Operation Fast and Furious, they've been less forgiving over the move this year to seize two months of phone records from Associated Press offices. That bombshell was compounded by the revelation that the department seized phone and email records for Fox News offices. The scandal grew as the department acknowledged Friday that Holder was involved in the court document that accused Rosen of being a likely criminal "co-conspirator," as part of the department's successful argument for obtaining a search warrant for Rosen's emails.

According to a report in The Daily Beast, aides say Holder has started to feel regret for the investigations. Under Obama's direction, he is starting a review of DOJ policies and meeting with representatives from the media.

A Justice Department official said Wednesday that Holder will hold meetings with several Washington bureau chiefs of national news organizations over the next two days. This is nothing more than Holder’s attempt at garnering support from friendly media outlets such as NBC and ABC,

A Justice Department official said Wednesday that Holder will hold meetings with several Washington bureau chiefs of national news organizations over the next two days.

"These meetings will begin a series of discussions that will continue to take place over the coming weeks. During these sessions, the Attorney General will engage with a diverse and representative group of news media organizations, including print, wires, radio, television, online media and news and trade associations," the official said.

Turley, in his column, scoffed at this course of action, since Holder was involved in the surveillance — at least the surveillance involving Fox News — in the first place. "Such an inquiry offers no reason to trust its conclusions," Turley wrote.

He described Holder as a trusted Obama "sin eater," swallowing the worst criticisms to shield the president.

"Indeed, these sins should be fatal for any attorney general," Turley wrote.

In the case of the burgeoning IRS Scandal when Congress returns from a weeklong recess on Monday, Danny Werfel is scheduled to appear before a House Appropriations subcommittee in his first congressional testimony since becoming acting IRS commissioner last week. Also appearing will be J. Russell George, the Treasury Department inspector general whose report detailed the IRS tactics..

Florida Republican Rep. Ander Crenshaw, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees financial services and general government, said he wants to make sure Americans are treated fairly, whatever their political beliefs.

On Tuesday, the House Ways and Means Committee plans a hearing with groups targeted by the IRS. The panel did not identify which organizations would testify.

Meanwhile, the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal organization, brought the lawsuit on behalf of the groups in U.S. District Court in Washington.

The suit accuses the Obama administration of using a "comprehensive, pervasive, invidious and organized scheme" to deny tax-exempt status based on groups' political views. It seeks unspecified monetary damages and asks that the 10 groups still seeking the status be granted it.

Other legal action is also being taken by other conservative groups around the country.

According to a report in the Washington Times lawmakers will zero in on IRS meetings at White House:

“Lawmakers now investigating the Internal Revenue Service practice zeroed in on those nearly weekly White House meetings to determine whether an IRS official — or someone higher up in the administration — had approved the targeting and whether it was politically motivated.

The frequent meetings also raised questions about the White House's claims that it couldn't have instigated the targeting of conservative groups because it took a hands-off approach to the tax agency, going so far as to describe it as independent of the administration even though it's part of the Treasury Department.”

Over the past few weeks, the Obama Administration has been hit with scandal after scandal. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) apologized for targeting conservative organizations, the State Department covered up its reaction to Benghazi, the Department of Justice (DOJ) secretly seized phone records of AP reporters, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked health industry officials for contributions to implement the Affordable Care Act.

With these scandals arising, the question becomes, “Is President Obama responsible?” As of right now, there has been no link identified between the White House and these situations, nor is there evidence that Obama had any direct knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing. Does this mean that he is not responsible?

With these scandals arising, the question becomes, “Is President Obama responsible?” As of right now, there has been no link identified between the White House and these situations, nor is there evidence that Obama had any direct knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing. Does this mean that he is not responsible?

Nobody is remotely suggesting that, absent his direct involvement, the President should be prosecuted for the misdeeds of those who work in the executive branch. It is interesting to note, however — by way of analogy only — that under the DOJ’s standard of “responsibility,” if President Obama were the head of a corporation, he would be responsible and could be prosecuted

The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute business owners and officers for the criminal activity of their businesses, regardless of whether they had knowledge of the illegal activity. The only requirement for criminal liability is “some relationship between the executive’s supervisory responsibilities and the underlying misconduct.” Put another way, in order to obtain a conviction, the government need only prove (1) illegal conduct occurred, and (2) the corporate officer had authority to exercise control over the activity.

The DOJ has used the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine to make criminals out of many well-meaning business people. In United States v. Park, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prosecuted the president of a corporation under the theory that his subordinates committed violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that the president had the ability to prevent or correct. Park, the company president, had delegated responsibility to correct the violations to one of his employees, who, regrettably for Park, did not follow through on his responsibilities. Park was convicted for FDA violations that he did not commit, order committed, or conspire to commit.

Just to be clear, there is no evidence in the recent Obama Administration scandals that criminal behavior took place, but the executive branch should stick to one definition of “responsible.” The DOJ definition of “responsible” is especially troubling in the context of a criminal prosecution where a person’s individual liberty is at stake—not just news stories that make the President look bad.

As Paul J. Larkin Jr. has written in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy:

“The point is not that courts should be eager to hold senior federal officials vicariously liable for the criminal actions of subordinates.… Courts should refuse to adopt novel readings of criminal statutes which expand criminal liability to reach conduct that they find immoral or unethical and that they fear otherwise will go unpunished. Courts might be willing to hesitate before expanding the breadth of federal criminal laws, and to force Congress to define crimes with precision and specificity, if they looked at the issue from the perspective of the government officials’ own liability. After all, sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.”

The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine turns our notion of fairness on its head. People should be liable for crimes they commit — not crimes committed by others without their knowledge. The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine and thousands of criminal statutes and regulations are turning ordinary citizens into criminals.

If the President is not responsible for the wrongdoings of executive branch employees because the federal government is “too vast” for him to know everything that goes on in the various agencies, business owners and officers should be afforded the same excuse in criminal prosecutions. But, on the other hand if the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine stands the Obama, Holder, Hillary, along with IRS chiefs Miller, and Shulman should be liable to prosecution. After all, as Larkin stated: “the sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.”

Our Founding Fathers feared the emergence of an agency such as the IRS and its potential for abuse. That's why they gave us Article 1, Section 9.4 of the Constitution, which reads: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” A capitation is a tax placed directly on an individual. That's what an income tax is. The founders feared the abuse and the government power inherent in a direct tax. In Article I Section 8.1 they added, “But all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” These protections the founders gave us were undone by the Progressive era's 16th Amendment, which reads, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The bottom line is that members of Congress need such a ruthless tax collection agency as the IRS because of the charge we Americans have given them."

"We have truly entered the world of 'Alice in Wonderland' when the CEO of a company that pays $16 million a day in taxes is hauled up before a Congressional subcommittee to be denounced on nationwide television for not paying more. Apple CEO Tim Cook was denounced for contributing to “a worrisome federal deficit,” according to Senator Carl Levin — one of the big-spending liberals in Congress who has had a lot more to do with creating that deficit than any private citizen has. The real danger to us all is when government not only exercises the powers that we have voted to give it, but exercises additional powers that we have never voted to give it. That is when “public servants” become public masters. That is when government itself has stepped over the line. Government's power to bully people who have broken no law is dangerous to all of us. No American government can take away all our freedoms at one time. But a slow and steady erosion of freedom can accomplish the same thing on the installment plan. Progressives and their supporters have been doing this for the past 100 plus years and now, perhaps, we the people will begin to reverse this trend — I hope.

As former Senator Fred Thompson quipped: "The ratings are out, and MSNBC has hit a 7-year low with their coverage of the scandals swirling around the White House. Well, when the emperor has no clothes, it's hard to take his tailor seriously."

Another Example of Obama’s Administration Targeting Conservatives

“The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all citizens.” — Thomas Jefferson, Note in Destutt de Tracy — 1816

If you’ll recall, the Gibson Guitar Corporation made the headlines in 2011 when federal agents armed with search warrants raided their facilities in Nashville and Memphis, Tenn. The agents seized raw materials, electronic files and guitars and the company was accused of using “endangered” wood in violation of U.S. and foreign laws. Oddly enough, some of Gibson’s biggest competitors — including C.F. Martin & Co. – used similar wood in their guitars but avoided the feds.

On September 1, 2011 I posted the blog “Hide Your Stradivarius” where I detailed the raid by the Department of Justice on the Gibson Guitar Company’s facilities in Nashville and Memphis Tennessee. In that post I quoted an article in The Wall Street Journal’s August 26, 2011 article by Eric Felten:

“Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson’s chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company’s manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. “The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier,” he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle.

It isn’t the first time that agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service have come knocking at the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian’s ES-150. In 2009 the Feds seized several guitars and pallets of wood from a Gibson factory, and both sides have been wrangling over the goods in a case with the delightful name “United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms.”

The question in the first raid seemed to be whether Gibson had been buying illegally harvested hardwoods from protected forests, such as the Madagascar ebony that makes for such lovely fretboards. And if Gibson did knowingly import illegally harvested ebony from Madagascar, that wouldn’t be a negligible offense. Peter Lowry, ebony and rosewood expert at the Missouri Botanical Garden, calls the Madagascar wood trade the “equivalent of Africa’s blood diamonds.” But with the new raid, the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle.”

Now with all of today’s questions about the Obama administration’s role in targeting conservative activist groups, one has to question if the Gibson raid wasn’t just another example of a politically motivated attack.

Interestingly, one of Gibson's leading competitors is C.F. Martin & Co. According to C.F. Martin's catalog, several of their guitars contain "East Indian Rosewood," which is the exact same wood in at least 10 of Gibson's guitars. So why were they not also raided and their inventory of foreign wood seized?

Grossly underreported at the time was the fact that Gibson's chief executive, Henry Juszkiewicz, contributed to Republican politicians. Recent donations have included $2,000 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and $1,500 to Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

By contrast, Chris Martin IV, the Martin & Co. CEO, is a long-time Democratic supporter, with $35,400 in contributions to Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee over the past couple of election cycles.

"We feel that Gibson was inappropriately targeted," Juszkiewicz said at the time, adding the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact (from) a caring human being representing the government. Instead, the government used violent and hostile means."

That includes what Gibson described as "two hostile raids on its factories by agents carrying weapons and attired in SWAT gear where employees were forced out of the premises, production was shut down, goods were seized as contraband and threats were made that would have forced the business to close."

Gibson, fearing a bankrupting legal battle, settled and agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty to the U.S. Government. It also agreed to make a "community service payment" of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — to be used on research projects or tree-conservation activities.

The feds in return agreed to let Gibson resume importing wood while they sought "clarification" from India. According to Juszkiewicz in an interview on Fox and Friends the raid has cost the company over $7 million in fines, forced contributions, legal fees, confiscated materials, and loss of sales in response to a civil suit filed in June 2011 by the Justice Department.

The feds say they acted to save the environment from greedy plunderers. America is a trivial importer of rosewood from Madagascar and India. Ninety-five percent of it goes to China, where it is used to make luxury items like $800,000 beds. So putting Gibson out of business wasn't going to do a whole lot to save their forests.

Juszkiewicz' claim that his company was "inappropriately targeted" is eerily similar to the claims by Tea Party, conservative, pro-life and religious groups that they were targeted by the IRS for special scrutiny because they sought to exercise their First Amendment rights to band together in vocal opposition to the administration's policies and the out-of-control growth of government and its power.

The Gibson Guitar raid, the IRS intimidation of Tea Party groups and the fraudulently obtained warrant naming Fox News reporter James Rosen as an "aider, abettor, co-conspirator" in stealing government secrets are but a few examples of the abuse of power by the Obama administration to intimidate those on its enemies list.

Gibson Guitars are among the most sought-after musical instruments in the world. Everyone from Chet Atkins to Les Paul to Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin to Slash of Guns n’ Roses played them. A vintage 1959 Les Paul guitar can go for as much as $400,000. Almost every kid who has dreams of music stardom wants a Gibson guitar.

Gibson is also a company that is proud to put the “Made in the USA” label on its instruments. While the company has lower-end lines that are made overseas, every guitar that bears the “Gibson” label is made in the U.S. by American workers.

On August 24, 2011, armed agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Homeland Security raided the corporate headquarters and two factories of the Gibson Guitar company. The agencies took away 24 pallets of Indian rosewood and ebony, as well as a number of guitars and computer files.

The federal agents’ contention is that Gibson had illegally imported the exotic wood, which is used to make fretboards and bridges for their high-end instruments. Under the 1900 Lacey Act, which was amended in 2008 to include wood products, American companies must abide by the laws of source countries when importing products. The intent of the law is to protect endangered species of wildlife and plants. U.S. Fish and Wildlife claims that the Gibson wood — in the form of fingerboard ‘blanks’ — was illegal to export from India and therefore illegal to import into the United States.

Now here’s the rub. While the feds say the wood — as imported — is illegal, had it been ‘finished’ by workers in India, it would have been perfectly legal to import. The wood itself was not banned, just the manufacturing process — or lack of it.

“I think they’re taking the position that we should be shifting these jobs overseas,” says Bruce Mitchell, the chief legal counsel for Gibson. “We have — probably 40 people in our factory here just at USA who are doing the inlays into the fingerboard that are putting the fret on. If all that was to be done over in India, then those jobs would be lost.”

What’s most puzzling about this case is that India is perfectly happy to ship the fingerboard ‘blanks’ to the United States. In a letter dated July 13, 2012, the deputy director general of foreign trade for India confirmed that “fingerboards made of rosewood and ebony is (sic) freely exportable.”

U.S. Fish and Wildlife offered no comment about the discrepancy. But people involved in the import and export of musical instruments and parts believe the U.S. Department of Justice offered its own interpretation of Indian law. Even though India saw no reason for an enforcement action, the U.S. did.

“It is such an outrageous position — it has hurt Gibson tremendously — has criminalized Gibson and its workplace and its workers. It is an unsustainable position that they’re taking,” Mitchell says.

Something else to consider in all of this: Gibson uses the same wood, from many of the same suppliers and importers that nearly every other guitar company in America does. And they have not been targeted. You might ask – why?

Rewind the clock four years. Gibson was raided in 2009 and a shipment of rosewood and ebony from Madagascar was seized. Gibson argued that the wood was obtained through proper channels, but U.S. Fish and Wildlife argued that Gibson could not adequately prove that the wood came from legitimate sources. Again, the issue of ‘finishing’ the wood came into play. Had Gibson imported finished parts from Madagascar instead of ‘blanks,’ it would have been perfectly legal.

No charges have been filed as of yet, and Gibson is fighting in court to get its wood back.

It could be that the Madagascar issue put Gibson front and center on the Department of Justice's radar screen.

There was a discrepancy in the import of this latest shipment of wood. It was listed with an improper tariff code, which the importer, Luthiers Mercantile International of Windsor, Calif., claimed was a clerical error by a junior employee and tried to clear up. But rather than talk to the importer and Gibson about it, the Justice Department dispatched U.S. Fish and Wildlife and DHS agents to raid the Gibson compounds.

Gibson feels it has been unfairly targeted. “We are being singled out. Very much so,” says Mitchell. “Every music instrument company in the United States uses rosewood fingerboards. Period. And they’re in the same state — they’re buying from the same suppliers, they’re using the same shippers.”

Gibson has also been working hard to maintain proper sources of wood, working with the Forest Stewardship Council to insure its suppliers are certified. Gibson also works closely with the Rainforest Alliance on sustainable supplies of exotic woods. It’s a no-brainer for Gibson and other guitar manufacturers. If they can’t get the highly sought-after tone woods that artists crave, they just might go out of business.

Outside observers see a more sinister possibility in all of this. Henry Juszkiewicz, Gibson’s CEO, is a Republican, who has contributed to Republican candidates (as well as some Democratic candidates). Other guitar companies, which have not been targeted, are led by Democrats. Is there a political motivation to all of this? Neither Mitchell, nor Juszkiewicz will offer an opinion, but consider what Juszkiewicz told Neil Cavuto on "Your World."

“You know we've been pretty low key. We're a guitar company. We've been manufacturing guitars. We've been involved in the environmental movement. We’ve been trying to do the right thing in terms of sourcing. We really don’t know why they are picking on us.”

With the current rash of charges against the Department of Justice we might consider changing the name to The Department of targeted Injustice based on your politics.

As more and more charges mount against Eric Holder it is evident he is no doubt the worst Attorney General since Alexander Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson’s AG noted for his infamous “Palmer Raids.”

Cleta Mitchell has prepared a comprehensive guide to the IRS’ abuse of election-integrity and Tea Party Groups. It has everything you need to know to understand the legal environment that sprouted this scandal.

On May 23 we discovered that Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed the search warrants targeting Fox News reporter James Rosen. That was very bad news, because President Obama is supposed to be deeply “troubled” about the whole affair, and deeply believes that “journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.” The President loves freedom of the press very, very, very much. He’s so troubled that he assigned the Attorney General to get to the bottom of it, a grueling search that lasted until Holder wandered into the men’s room and caught a glimpse of himself in the mirror.

But this is more than just a profound embarrassment for Holder and his boss, because a compelling case can be made that Eric Holder once again lied to Congress — and, unlike the Fast and Furious mess, he’s not going to get out of it by claiming that he doesn’t read his email, doesn’t know what his subordinates are doing, and can only find the Justice Department because his driver and body guard know where it is.

Because Holder, in sworn testimony before Congress, said this: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”

It’s not a misstatement or a slip of the tongue. Holder has not only been “involved in” the “potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material.” On May 24^th the Huffington Post reported that he not only signed the search warrants, but vetted them. This means he can’t use the “Colonel Blake” maneuver and claim he just signed a stack of paperwork without reading it.

On CNN’s State of the Union, former House speaker Newt Gingrich argued that Republicans have an important choice to make when it comes to discussing the IRS scandal: “I think this is a really important moment for Republicans in particular to make a decision: Is this a gotcha moment or is this a major educational opportunity?” Gingrich pointed to even Obama adviser David Axelrod’s recent acknowledgement that the government is too large for President Obama to have known what was happening at the IRS.

The crucial question, said Gingrich, is, “Are we going to have systemic change, and are we going to talk about the fact that big government and big bureaucracy is inherently out of control by its very definition?”

Grover Cleveland – Republican or Democrat – Progressive or Conservative

When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of free government.” — Grover Cleveland

Once upon a time in the last part of the 19^th century there was a Democratic Party that was more fiscally conservative and dedicated to small government. This party’s principles were dedicated to sound fiscal management, less government intervention of the lives of citizens, states’ rights as enumerated in the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, and the Constitution — especially Article I, Section 8.

On the other side of the political aisle was the Republican Party that had been in power since Abraham Lincoln. This once small party, that was formed to abolish slavery, had grown over the same period of time to become the party of big business, crony capitalism, and bigger government.

So what happened to these two major political parties controlled our government and our lives?

The Parties did a flip-flop in the first decade of the 20^th century. After the administration of Theodore Roosevelt the Democrats became more like to Republicans and the Republicans became more like the Democrats. Under the progressive administrations of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson the Democrats became the Party of big government and fiscal irresponsibility. There were brief periods during this time when the administration of Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan attempted to correct the progressive course of the Democrats.

A word about “flip-flopping.” Today the term has become a pejorative in political campaigns. However, I see “flip-flopping” in different context. Suppose you we educated to believe the Earth was flat, as many were in olden times. Then one day after reading scholarly works and scientific papers on Newtonian physics, Geodesy, and Geophysics you came to believe that earth was round (actually it’s an oblate spheroid) and began espousing a round Earth principle. Is this “flip-flopping” of simply education and the rejection cognitive dissidence?

Applying this hypothesis to the political parties we see that the Democrats flipped to the principles held by the Republicans of the latter 19^th century and the Republicans flipped the other way. The flipping was not immediate but more of a osmotic process from 1908 to 1920 (Taft to Harding).It should be noted that the corrosive 16th Amendment was introduced and ratified during the Taft administration although it was supported be the progressive Woodrow Wilson. The Democratic Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, Richard E Byrd (the father of the Polar explorer Admiral Richard E. Byrd, Jr.), mounted such fierce opposition to the 16^th Amendment that the House of Delegates refused to ratify it.

Over the past few years I have been guilty of an ignorance of great conservative presidents in American history. The first was Calvin Coolidge and the second was Grover Cleveland. "Coolidge" by Amity Shlaes is certainly a page-turning eye-opener that I highly recommend. Who knew that American presidential history could be so insightful? The second is this book, "The Forgotten Conservative” by John Pafford. Cleveland also garners praise from libertarians such as Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo in his mind-blowing "The Real Lincoln" as being the last Jeffersonian. Cleveland's policies of economic freedom and fiscal responsibility make Reagan look like a big government type. That is not to disparage Reagan's outstanding legacy, however, it is simply to highlight the excellent qualities of principle that guided him and the statesmanship that Cleveland demonstrated.

The Question I ask is “how do we keep forgetting great presidents?” It appears that our progressive public education system seems to focus only on the liberal progressive administrations. Unless you are studying for an advanced degree it is very likely you will not learn much about Presidents like Jackson, Cleveland, Coolidge, or even Reagan. These presidents are considered an anathema by our liberal press and progressive educators.

Stephen Grover Cleveland was the First Democrat elected after the Civil War, Grover Cleveland was the only President to leave the White House and return for a second term four years later.

One of nine children of a Presbyterian minister, Cleveland was born in New Jersey in 1837. He was raised in upstate New York. As a lawyer in Buffalo, he became notable for his single-minded concentration upon whatever task faced him.

At 44, he emerged into a political prominence that carried him to the White House in three years. Running as a reformer, he was elected Mayor of Buffalo in 1881, and later, Governor of New York.

Cleveland won the Presidency with the combined support of Democrats and reform Republicans, the "Mugwumps," who disliked the record of his opponent James G. Blaine of Maine.

Corruption in politics was the central issue in 1884, and Cleveland's reputation as an opponent of corruption proved the Democrats' strongest asset. Reform-minded Republicans denounced Blaine as corrupt and flocked to Cleveland. The Mugwumps, including such men as Carl Schurz and Henry Ward Beecher, were more concerned with morality than with party, and felt Cleveland was a kindred soul who would promote civil service reform and fight for efficiency in government. At the same time the Democrats gained support from the Mugwumps, they lost some blue-collar workers to the Greenback-Labor party, led by ex-Democrat Benjamin Butler.

The campaign focused on the candidates' personalities, as each candidate's supporters cast aspersions on their opponents. Cleveland's supporters rehashed the old allegations that Blaine had corruptly influenced legislation in favor of the Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad and the Union Pacific Railway, later profiting on the sale of bonds he owned in both companies. Although the stories of Blaine's favors to the railroads had made the rounds eight years earlier, this time Blaine's correspondence was discovered, making his earlier denials less plausible. On some of the most damaging correspondence, Blaine had written "Burn this letter," giving Democrats the last line to their rallying cry: "Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the state of Maine, 'Burn this letter!"

To counter Cleveland's image of superior morality, Republicans discovered reports that Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child while he was a lawyer in Buffalo, and chanted "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" When confronted with the emerging scandal, Cleveland's instructions to his campaign staff were: "Tell the truth."Cleveland admitted to paying child support in 1874 to Maria Crofts Halpin, the woman who claimed he fathered her child named Oscar Folsom Cleveland. Halpin was involved with several men at the time, including Cleveland's friend and law partner, Oscar Folsom, for whom the child was also named. Cleveland did not know which man was the father, and is believed to have assumed responsibility because he was the only bachelor among them.

Both candidates believed that the states of New York, New Jersey, Indiana, and Connecticut would determine the election. In New York, the Tammany Hall Democrats, after vacillating, decided that they would gain more from supporting a Democrat they disliked than a Republican who would do nothing for them. Blaine hoped that he would have more support from Irish Americans than Republicans typically did; while the Irish were mainly a Democratic constituency in the 19th century, Blaine's mother was Irish Catholic, and he had been supportive of the Irish National Land League while he was Secretary of State. The Irish, a significant group in three of the swing states, did appear inclined to support Blaine until one of his supporters, Samuel D. Burchard, gave a speech denouncing the Democrats as the party of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". The Democrats spread the word of this insult in the days before the election, and Cleveland narrowly won all four of the swing states, including New York by just over one thousand votes. While the popular vote total was close, with Cleveland winning by just one-quarter of a percent, the electoral votes gave Cleveland a majority of 219–182. Following the electoral victory, the "Ma, Ma ..." attack phrase gained a classic rejoinder: "Gone to the White House. Ha! Ha! Ha!"

A bachelor, Cleveland was ill at ease at first with all the comforts of the White House. "I must go to dinner," he wrote a friend, "but I wish it was to eat a pickled herring a Swiss cheese and a chop at Louis' instead of the French stuff I shall find." In June 1886 Cleveland married 21-year-old Frances Folsom; he was the only President married in the White House.

In his third annual message to Congress (December 6, 1887) Cleveland stated:

"When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share toward the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice. The public Treasury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people's tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people's use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country's development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder."

This sounded very much like Frederick Bastiat, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, or Ron Paul than any Republican or Democrat since.

Cleveland vigorously pursued a policy barring special favors to any economic group. Vetoing a bill to appropriate $10,000 (well over a quarter of a million dollars in today’s money) to distribute seed grain among drought-stricken farmers in Texas, he wrote: "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland also stated: he could find no warrant in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) that would permit the government to give financial aid to the states or private persons as a group or individuals. Cleveland stated:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

He was no doubt referring to the intent limiting Congress’ authority and power as enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

He also vetoed many private pension bills to Civil War veterans whose claims were fraudulent. When Congress, pressured by the Grand Army of the Republic, passed a bill granting pensions for disabilities not caused by military service, Cleveland vetoed it, too.

Cleveland was the leader of the pro-business Bourbon Democrats who opposed high tariffs, Free Silver, inflation, imperialism and subsidies to business, farmers or veterans. His battles for political reform and fiscal conservatism made him an icon for American conservatives of the era. Cleveland won praise for his honesty, independence, integrity, and commitment to the principles of classical liberalism expressed by men like John Locke and our Founders. Cleveland relentlessly fought political corruption, patronage, and bossism.

Cleveland's last cabinet.
Front row, left to right: Daniel S. Lamont, Richard Olney, Cleveland,John G. Carlisle, Judson Harmon
Back row, left to right: David R. Francis, William L. Wilson, Hilary A. Herbert, Julius S. Morton

He angered the railroads by ordering an investigation of western lands they held by Government grant. He forced them to return 81,000,000 acres. He also signed the Interstate Commerce Act, the first law attempting Federal regulation of the railroads.

In December 1887 he called on Congress to reduce high protective tariffs. Told that he had given Republicans an effective issue for the campaign of 1888, he retorted, "What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?" But Cleveland was defeated in 1888; although he won a larger popular majority than the Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison, he received fewer electoral votes.

Elected again in 1892, Cleveland faced an acute depression. He dealt directly with the Treasury crisis rather than with business failures, farm mortgage foreclosures, and unemployment. He obtained repeal of the mildly inflationary Sherman Silver Purchase Act and, with the aid of Wall Street, maintained the Treasury's gold reserve.

Labor unrest continued to haunt Cleveland during his second term. When 150,000 railroad strikers in Chicago violated an injunction, Cleveland sent Federal troops to enforce it. Even though the governor of Illinois, John Altgeld, did not want Cleveland to use federal troops to break the strike, the President did so anyway. Many observers wondered whether the nation was on the brink of either anarchy or presidential tyranny. Cleveland's handling of the strike alienated many Northern workers from the Democratic Party. If it takes the entire army and navy of the United States to deliver a post card in Chicago," he thundered, "that card will be delivered."

Cleveland's blunt treatment of the railroad strikers stirred the pride of many Americans. So did the vigorous way in which he forced Great Britain to accept arbitration of a disputed boundary in Venezuela. But his policies during the depression were generally unpopular. His party deserted him and nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896, who was defeated by the Ohio Republican William McKinley a burgeoning progressive. Upon McKinley’s assassination on September 14, 1901 and the ascendency of his vice president Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency the progressive movement in the United States began with renewed vigor.

In the midst of the fight for repeal of Free Silver coinage in 1893, Cleveland sought the advice of the White House doctor, Dr. O'Reilly, about soreness on the roof of his mouth and a crater-like edge ulcer with a granulated surface on the left side of Cleveland's hard palate. Samples of the tumor were sent anonymously to the army medical museum.

Cleveland decided to have surgery secretly, to avoid further panic that might worsen the financial depression. The surgery occurred on July 1, to give Cleveland time to make a full recovery in time for the upcoming Congressional session.] Under the guise of a vacation cruise, Cleveland and his surgeon, Dr. Joseph Bryant, left for New York. The surgeons operated aboard the Oneida, a yacht owned by Cleveland's friend E. C. Benedict, as it sailed off Long Island. The surgery was conducted through the president's mouth, to avoid any scars or other signs of surgery. The team, sedating Cleveland with nitrous oxide and ether, successfully removed parts of his upper left jaw and hard palate. The size of the tumor and the extent of the operation left Cleveland's mouth disfigured. During another surgery, Cleveland was fitted with a hard rubber dental prosthesis that corrected his speech and restored his appearance. A cover story about the removal of two bad teeth kept the suspicious press placated. Even when a newspaper story appeared giving details of the actual operation, the participating surgeons discounted the severity of what transpired during Cleveland's vacation. In 1917, one of the surgeons present on the Oneida, Dr. William W. Keen, wrote an article detailing the operation.

Cleveland enjoyed many years of life after the tumor was removed, and there was some debate as to whether it was actually malignant. Several doctors, including Dr. Keen, stated after Cleveland's death that the tumor was a carcinoma. Other suggestions included ameloblastoma or a benign salivary mixed tumor (also known as a pleomorphic adenoma). In the 1980s, analysis of the specimen finally confirmed the tumor to be verrucous carcinoma, a low-grade epithelial cancer with a low potential for metastasi

Cleveland's agrarian and Silverite enemies gained control of the Democratic party in 1896, repudiated his administration and the gold standard, and nominated William Jennings Bryan on a Silver Platform. Cleveland silently supported the Gold Democrats' third-party ticket that promised to defend the gold standard, limit government, and oppose high tariffs, but declined to accept their nomination for a third term. The party won only 100,000 votes in the general election, and William McKinley, the Republican nominee, triumphed easily over Bryan. Agrarians would later nominate Bryan again in 1900, but in 1904 the conservatives, with Cleveland's support, regained control of the Democratic Party and nominated Alton B. Parker.

After leaving the White House on March 4, 1897, Cleveland lived in retirement at his estate, Westland Mansion, in Princeton, New Jersey. For a time he was a trustee of Princeton University, and was one of the majority of trustees who preferred Dean West's plans for the Graduate School and undergraduate living over those of Woodrow Wilson, then president of the university. Cleveland consulted occasionally with President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909), but was financially unable to accept the chairmanship of the commission handling the Coal Strike of 1902. Cleveland still made his views known in political matters.

When Grover Cleveland became President in 1885, he was the first Democrat to occupy the White House since James Buchanan was elected just prior to the Civil War. For most of his first term, Cleveland was more concerned with preventing Congress from granting privileges to special interests than with pursuing his own legislative agenda. He did not see himself as an activist President. Beyond making speeches, he did not send much legislation to Congress or demonstrate much leadership. Instead, he focused on making the federal government more efficient by appointing officials based on merit. Cleveland's management style was to name qualified cabinet members, delegate authority to them, and use them for advice and counsel.

Cleveland did, however, push two legislative initiatives, during his first term,: the repeal of the Bland-Allison Silver Purchase Act of 1878 and tariff reduction. His efforts, however, were ineffective and poorly presented. Always a hard-currency advocate (he thought that paper money should be backed by gold), Cleveland believed that inflating the money supply through the purchase and coinage of silver undermined confidence in the American dollar and punished creditors by paying them money less valuable than the dollars they had originally loaned. On this issue Cleveland stood apart from his constituency, especially in the South and West. The Bland-Allison Act remained law until the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 replaced it. Tariff reduction, on the other hand, had the support of many Democrats. However, Cleveland's ineffective leadership generated little change in the tariff structure.

Consistent with his actions as governor of New York, Cleveland was not shy about using his veto power. For example, he turned away hundreds of veterans' pension bills because he thought they were fraudulent. He also vetoed a bill to provide drought relief to farmers in the West owing to his belief that such assistance was not the province of national government.

In one area, however, Cleveland exhibited tact and effective energy. Almost as soon as he assumed office, Cleveland's congressional opponents attempted to limit his power to remove Republican-appointed federal officials. They argued that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 required congressional consent for the dismissal of executive branch office-holders. Cleveland refused to accept this interpretation, made speeches in opposition, and forced the Republicans to back down. His decisive action in this matter stands as the exception rather than the rule when it came to his leadership of Congress.

Although a reformer, Cleveland used patronage and party organization to win elections. He stood with his party in opposition to temperance, thus winning the support of others who opposed it—including the Irish, Germans, and East Europeans who had migrated to the United States by the tens of thousands in the 1880s. On the issue of race, he agreed with white southerners in their reluctance to treat African Americans as social and political equals, and made special efforts to reach out to Democrats and former Confederates in the South to assure them that they had a friend in the White House. He also opposed integrated schools in New York and saw African Americans as essentially inferior. In believing that government should not interfere with what he regarded as a social problem, he opposed efforts to protect the suffrage of African Americans.

In his first term as President, Cleveland condemned the "outrages" being committed against the Chinese on the nation's west coast. He soon concluded, however, that prejudice towards the Chinese in the region was so deep and their culture so alien that America could not absorb this immigrant group. Thereafter, he worked to limit Chinese immigration and to prohibit those who had left the United States to visit relatives in China from returning. The principal difference between Chinese and European immigrants, he believed, was the unwillingness of the former to assimilate into American society.

When Cleveland took office, 204,000 Native Americans were scattered among 171 reservations on 135 million acres of land. In Cleveland's view, the Native Americans were wards of the nation, like wayward but promising children in need of a guardian. Regarding himself as an Indian reformer, Cleveland sought to persuade Native Americans to forego their old tribal ways. He sought to assimilate them into white society by means of education, private land ownership, and parental guidance from the federal government. Though he did not campaign for the bill, he eagerly supported and signed into law the Dawes Act of 1887, which empowered the President to allot land within the reservations to individual Indians—with all surplus land reverting to the public domain. It was a disastrous policy that robbed Native Americans of much of their land and did little to improve their way of life.

Cleveland was mostly silent on the issue of women's suffrage. He understood the value of women's clubs and political organizations in drumming up the vote of husbands and fathers, and was careful not to alienate either group by speaking out against female suffrage. Neither, however, did he speak in favor of it. His one stance in support of women's rights was to criticize polygamy.

In a 1905 article in The Ladies Home Journal, Cleveland weighed in on the women's suffrage movement, writing that "sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by men and women in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence.”

Cleveland's second administration began in 1893, just as the nation entered the most severe depression in its history. By 1894, nearly 18 percent of the nation's workers were unemployed. One-third of the wage earners in manufacturing and 25 percent of urban workers stood idle and hungry. Confidence in the economy was low, as one out of ten banks had shut their doors to depositors. Railroad construction had fallen by 50 percent, and the market for steel rails fell by one-third, forcing dozens of steel companies into bankruptcy. Charities and relief societies were unable to cope with the overwhelming demand for aid.

One response to the depression came by way of Ohioan Jacob Coxey, who organized unemployed workers from the Midwest to march to Washington, D.C., and appeal to the government for provide public works projects and relief. Known as Coxey's Army, thousands of workers tramped across the nation to Washington, D.C., though only 500 actually arrived. The press gave the march wide coverage. Ultimately, however, Coxey's efforts were unsuccessful. Cleveland did not believe that the government should sponsor work projects to relieve the depression, and the march did nothing to change his mind.

Cleveland's most forceful response to the depression was to blame the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, passed during the Harrison administration, for the nation's economic troubles. This law required the Treasury to purchase 4.5 million ounces of silver a month to be coined as silver dollars. As a result, the production of silver increased while the supply of gold fell, making gold more expensive. By 1893, the gold value of the silver dollar fell to 60 cents.

In successfully calling for repeal of the Purchase Act, Cleveland split the Democratic Party down the middle. He lost the support of western and southern Democrats, who thereafter looked upon Cleveland as more Republican than the Republicans. Upon repeal of the act, holders of U.S. government bonds (and the silver certificates the government once used to purchase silver) began cashing them in for gold. By 1892, the nation's gold reserves dipped below $100 million. Between 1894 and 1896, Cleveland authorized four new government bonds to raise enough gold to prevent the government from defaulting on its international obligations. He was forced to turn to investment banker J. P. Morgan to support the bonds. In relying on Morgan, Cleveland was derided for allying with powerful Wall Street interests instead of helping the average American. The President, however, felt that he had no choice but to replenish the country's gold reserves.

In the congressional elections of 1894, Cleveland's failure to deal with the depression instigated the greatest realignment of voters since the Civil War. The Democrats lost everywhere but in the Deep South. One Missouri Democrat said that the election was "the greatest slaughter of innocents since Herod," referring to the King of Judea under the Roman regime who was infamous for his tyranny, violence, and wickedness. Cleveland felt besieged, surrounded by enemies, and beset by hecklers at every turn. He left the White House in 1897 as an embittered but arrogant man, convinced that he had been betrayed by the "agrarian radicals" and "Silverites" within his own party.

Historians do not rank Grover Cleveland as a great President. Historians prefer Lincoln and progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. The consensus is that he achieved mixed results at best. Cleveland did help to create a Solid South for the Democrats by encouraging former Confederates to believe they had a friend in the White House who supported the 10^th Amendment; his return of captured Confederate battle flags and his decision to go fishing on Memorial Day — a Civil War holiday — aided in this regard. He also strengthened the party outside the South by linking it to civil service reform. On the other hand, his stubborn enmity toward the Silverites and agrarian populists nearly split the Democrats and contributed to their defeat in 1896. He distanced himself from party machines by insisting that the President had a special relationship with the people that superseded any obligation to party workers as did George Washington.

Cleveland's portrait was on the U.S. $1000 bill of series 1928 and series 1934. He also appeared on the first few issues of the $20 Federal Reserve Notes from 1914. Since he was both the 22nd and 24th president, he was featured on two separate dollar coins released in 2012 as part of the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005.

Although, according to historians, not a great President, Cleveland almost single-handedly restored and strengthened the power and autonomy of the executive branch. Notable in this regard was his use of executive privilege in refusing to hand over department files to Congress in the fight over presidential appointments. No President prior to Richard M. Nixon had ever made such an extreme assertion of executive privilege in peacetime. His record-breaking use of the presidential veto also enabled him to reestablish the equilibrium between the executive and legislative branches, another precedent-setting example of presidential power. Equally important, Cleveland laid claim to a strong presidency in ways that had lasting impact. His assertion of authority in calling out federal troops during the Pullman strike, sending warships to Panama, and threatening Britain with war over the Venezuelan boundary dispute set the tone for the modern energetic executive. Regarding social policy, Cleveland comes across as much more racially intolerant, and certainly when compared to Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt.

Following Cleveland's retirement from political office in 1897, he played the stock market and practiced law in order to support his substantial family — though it is estimated that by 1896 he had amassed a moderate personal fortune of $350,000 (8.2 million today). He moved to a spacious house in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was treated like royalty by the town's inhabitants. He also became a trustee of Princeton University and began writing essays and political commentary, including a book — Presidential Problems (1904) — which focused on some of his most controversial decisions. However, he never wrote his autobiography. Cleveland also served on several corporate boards and gave public speeches. The death of his oldest daughter Ruth, in 1904, visibly aged the old Democrat. Some of his friends said that he never fully recovered.

Grover Cleveland died as he had lived: determined to be in control. In the grip of a gastro-intestinal disease complicated by an ailment of the heart and kidneys, Cleveland suffered great pain in the spring of 1908. A severe attack hit him while on vacation in late March of 1908, causing him to think that the end was near. With great secrecy, he was rushed by automobile to Princeton, where he died early on June 24. "I have tried so hard to do right" were his final words.

Two days later, he was buried. Venezuela indicated that its nation's flags would be flown at half-mast. Theodore Roosevelt's eulogy compared him to a "happy warrior"—one who had served on honorable terms and who understood that the presidency was a "public trust" bestowed upon him by the people.

So while not a governing angel, in the terms of James Madison, Cleveland was a man who believed in the Constitution and the fiscal responsibility of the federal government. In that sense he could be considered a true conservative. On the other hand his intervention into strikes was more in line with his progressive predecessors like the Roosevelt’s and Woodrow Wilson.

In the words of Andrew B. Halldorson, one of the reviewers of Pafford’s book:

“In a day where political spin dominates everything, it's fascinating to read of the swift rise of an anti-corruption politician who faced two great obstacles to the White House. One, a sex-scandal, of which he told his supporters, "Whatever you do, tell the truth"; the other, a threat to play ball - or else -- from the powerful Tammany Hall political machine, which Cleveland rejected utterly and publicly.

The author of this book, John Pafford is that rare thing - a conservative optimist, who can make long ago events seem relevant for today, and embolden hearts as they look to both the past and the future

I suspect I'm not the only reader who knew next to nothing of the Cleveland era. Despite all the great differences, some issues had a familiar ring. Faced with economic calamity and a great social upheaval as the job market changed, there was enormous pressure to essentially print money and borrow on the future. But Cleveland would have none of it. He used the veto more than any president before him, and cited again and again the Constitutional limits of the power of federal government.

Cleveland's integrity still has the power to draw admirers from all political backgrounds, just as it did in its own day. Pafford includes anecdotes about an up and coming young Republican opponent - Theodore Roosevelt - who was a friend and admirer of Cleveland. And there is also a memorable exchange involving another supporter - the great writer and moralist Mark Twain.

Though the book looks at Cleveland through the eyes of a modern conservative, one of the best traits of the book is that Pafford never forgets his is writing foremost about a flesh-and-blood man, rather than a set of ideas. And so, by the end of the book, the reader may very well be ready to count Cleveland not only as a near great president, but someone it would have been a privilege to know.”

Cynical and elitists academics and historians will always incline their views of great presidents to the progressive ones, perhaps with the exception of Lincoln. These historians like activist presidents who ignore constitutional limits and push on issues of fairness and social justice while ignoring the limits placed on government by the Constitution. They are quick to find flaws with conservative presidents while overlooking or excusing the unconstitutional actions of a Lyndon Johnson or Barack Obama. Conservatives like Cleveland, Coolidge, or Reagan are just not on their radar.

Our Founders gave the President explicit powers in the Constitution. Greatness was not one of the attributes they were looking for. They also were not looking for greatness in the Congress or Supreme Court. However, what they were looking for was dedication, support, defense, and obedience to the Construction.

Today President Obama and New Jersey Governor Chis Christie toured the Jersey Shore to assess the progress being made after a billion dollars in federal aid has been pumped into the recovery efforts. Both stated that more aid was needed. Compare this with Cleveland’s refusal to grant $10,000 in seed grain relief for the victims of the Texas drought. I am sure Cleveland is turning over in his grave with the statement from Obama and Chrissie. Just ponder for a moment if more “non-activist” and less “great men” had occupied the White House since Grover Cleveland. Today we probably would have no federal agencies or departments such as FEMA, The EPA, Department of Education, HUD, Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, IRS, or ObamaCare.

Remembering the March King

“Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith — 1825

It is certainly appropriate and fitting to remember those who sacrificed their life and limb in the service of the United States from Valley Forge and Gettysburg to Iwo Jima and Helmand Province. It is also fitting to remember those patriots who gave much to our culture and heritage on this Memorial Day weekend.

I have posted two previous blogs honoring our fallen heroes; The Meaning of Memorial Day and how to make the perfect burger and Another Memorial Day. This Memorial Day I would like to allow the TV networks to run their specials and old and tired war movies while I remember John Philip Sousa in words and his music.

John Philip Sousa was born in 1854 in Washington, D.C. and died in 1932. He worked as a theater musician and conducted the U.S. Marine Band before starting his own civilian band in 1892. Sousa toured with his band for 40 years and was indisputably the most famous musical act in the world. He composed 136 marches, 15 operettas, 70 songs and many other pieces

Sousa was born in Washington, D.C., on November 6, 1854, to John Antonio Sousa, who was of Portuguese ancestry, and Maria Elisabeth Trinkhaus, who was of Bavarian ancestry. Sousa started his music education by playing the violin as a pupil of John Esputa and George Felix Benkert for harmony and musical composition at the age of six. He was found to have absolute pitch. During his childhood, Sousa studied voice, violin, piano, flute, cornet, baritone horn, trombone and alto horn. At the age of 13, his father, a trombonist in the Marine Band, enlisted Sousa in the United States Marine Corps as an apprentice to keep him from joining a circus band.

On December 30, 1879, Sousa married Jane van Middlesworth Bellis (1862–1944) a wife he would remain with until his death. They had three children: John Philip, Jr. (April 1, 1881 – May 18, 1937), Jane Priscilla (August 7, 1882 – October 28, 1958), and Helen (January 21, 1887 – October 14, 1975). All were buried in the John Philip Sousa plot in the Congressional Cemetery.

Several years after serving his apprenticeship, Sousa joined a theatrical (pit) orchestra where he learned to conduct. He returned to the U.S. Marine Band as its head in 1880 and remained as its conductor until 1892. Sousa led "The President's Own" band under five presidents from Rutherford B. Hayes to Benjamin Harrison. Sousa's band played at two Inaugural Balls, those of James A. Garfield in 1881, and Benjamin Harrison in 1889. The marching brass bass, or sousaphone, a modified helicon, was created by J. W. Pepper – a Philadelphia instrument maker who created the instrument in 1893 at Sousa’s request using several of his suggestions in its design. He wanted a tuba that could sound upward and over the band whether its player was seated or marching. The sousaphone was re-created in 1898 by C.G. Conn and this was the model that Sousa preferred to use.

He organized The Sousa Band the year he left the Marine Band. The Sousa Band toured from 1892–1931, performing at 15,623 concerts. In Paris, the Sousa Band marched through the streets including the Champs-Élysées to the Arc de Triomphe – one of only eight parades the band marched in over its forty years. The band played for sold-out crowds both in America and around the world, including at the World Exposition in Paris, France.

The Timeline for Sousa’s life:

1854: Born Washington, DC, Nov. 6. John Philip was 3rd of 10 children of John Antonio Sousa (born in Spain of Portuguese parents) and Maria Elisabeth Trinkhaus (born in Bavaria). John Philip's father, Antonio, played trombone in the U.S. Marine band. He grew up around military band music.

1860: Began musical study around age six, studying voice, violin, piano, flute, cornet, baritone, trombone and alto horn.

1867: His father enlisted him in the Marines at age 13 as an apprentice after he attempted to run away to join a circus band.

1872: Published first composition, "Moonlight on the Potomac Waltzes".

1875: Discharged from Marines. Began performing (on violin), touring and eventually conducting theater orchestras. Conducted Gilbert & Sullivan's H.M.S. Pinafore on Broadway.

1879: In February, met Jane van Middlesworth Bellis during Pinafore rehearsals; they were married December 30, 1879.

1880: Returned to Washington in September to assume leadership of the US Marine Band.

1880-1892: Conducted "The President's Own", serving under presidents Hayes, Garfield, Cleveland, Arthur and Harrison. After two successful but limited tours with the Marine Band in 1891 and 1892, promoter David Blakely convinced Sousa to resign and organize a civilian concert band.

1892: The first Sousa Band concert was performed September 26 at Stillman Music Hall in Plainfield, New Jersey. Two days earlier, bandleader Patrick Gilmore had died in St. Louis. Nineteen of Gilmore's former musicians eventually joined Sousa's band, including Herbert L. Clarke (cornet) and E. A. Lefebre (saxophone). The original name of the band was "Sousa's New Marine Band", but criticism from Washington forced the withdrawal of the name.

1895: Sousa's first successful operetta, El Capitan, debuts.

1896: Sousa's promoter David Blakely dies while Sousa and his wife are on vacation in Europe. On the return voyage, Sousa receives the inspiration for The Stars and Stripes Forever.

1900: The Sousa Band tours Europe.

1901: Second European tour.

1905: Third European tour.

1910: World Tour: New York, Great Britain, Canary Islands, South-Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji Islands, Hawaii, Canada.

1917: During World War I, Sousa joins the US Naval Reserve at age 62. He is assigned the rank of lieutenant and paid a salary of $1 per month.

1919-1932: After the war, Sousa continued to tour with his band. He championed the cause of music education, received several honorary degrees and fought for composers' rights, testifying before Congress in 1927 and 1928.

1932: Sousa dies at age 77 on March 6th, after conducting a rehearsal of the Ringgold Band in Reading, Pennsylvania. The last piece he conducted was "The Stars and Stripes Forever".

Sousa is not so much remembered for his life but for the patriotic marches he gave us. He wrote 136 marches, published by the Sam Fox Publishing Company beginning in 1917 and continuing until his death. Some of his notable ones are:

• The Gladiator March, (1866) Sousa's first hit.
• "King Cotton", a 1895 Sousa military march.
• "The Gallant Seventh", was in the 1920s and is distinguished as his only march with two breakstrains.
• Sousa's The Thunderer (1889), performed in 1896 by the United States Marine Band
• Sousa's Fairest of the Fair (1908), performed by the United States Navy Band
• "Semper Fidelis" (1888) (Official March of the United States Marine Corps)
• "The Washington Post" (1889)
• "The Thunderer" (1889)
• "High School Cadets" (1890)
• "The Liberty Bell" (1893) (later used as credits theme for Monty Python's Flying Circus TV series)
• "Manhattan Beach March" (1893)
• "Stars and Stripes Forever" (1896) (The National March of the United States)
• "El Capitan" (1896)
• "Hands Across the Sea" (dedicated to the band of the Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets – the Highty-Tighties) (1899)
• "Hail to the Spirit of Liberty" March (1900)
• "Invincible Eagle" (1901) (Dedicated to Pan-American Buffalo Exposition)
• "Fairest of the Fair" (1908)
• "Glory of the Yankee Navy" (1909)
• "U.S. Field Artillery" (1917) (Modified version The Army Goes Rolling Along is the official song of the U.S. Army)
• "Who's Who in Navy Blue" (1920) (Composed at the request of the United States Naval Academy class of 1920 and dedicated to Tecumseh, a bronze reproduction of the figurehead of the U.S.S. Delaware that occupies a key place at the Academy)
• "The Gallant Seventh" (1922)
• "Nobles of the Mystic Shrine" (1923)
• "The Black Horse Troop" (1924) (Written in honor of Troop A, 107th Cavalry, Ohio National Guard.
• "Pride of the Wolverines" (1926)
• "Minnesota March" (1927)
• "New Mexico March" (1928)
• "Salvation Army March" (1930) (dedicated to The Salvation Army's 50th anniversary in the USA)

Sousa wrote marches for several American universities, including University of Illinois, University of Nebraska, Kansas State University, and Marquette University.

A few notes of Sousa’s more famous marches:

In his autobiography, Marching Along, Sousa wrote that he composed the march on Christmas Day, 1896. He was on an ocean liner on his way home from a vacation with his wife in Europe and had just learned of the recent death of David Blakely, the manager of the Sousa Band. He composed the march in his head and committed the notes to paper on arrival in the United States. It was first performed at Willow Grove Park, just outside Philadelphia, on May 14, 1897, and was immediately greeted with enthusiasm. It was first performed in Augusta, Maine on May 1, 1897 at the New City Hall.

”The Stars and Stripes Forever" follows the standard American military march form. The march begins with a four-bar introduction, which is followed by a dotted, playful melody. Its trio is the most famous part of the march. Most bands adopt the Sousa Band practice of having one or three (never two piccolo players play the famous obbligato in the first repeat of the trio (the one after the breakstrain). In the final repeat of the trio (grandioso), the low brass joins the piccolo players with a prominent countermelody. The official version, as played by the United States Marine Band, is performed in the key of E-flat.

"Semper Fidelis", which was written in 1888 by John Philip Sousa, is regarded as the official march of the United States Marine Corps. This piece was one of two composed in response to a request from United States President Chester Arthur for a new piece to be associated with the United States President. The words Semper Fidelis are Latin for "Always Faithful."

In an October 1927 interview published in the Independent (Nebraska), Sousa claimed "I wrote "Semper Fidelis" one night while in tears after my comrades of the Marine Corps had sung their famous Hymn at Quantico.

"The Washington Post" is a march composed by John Philip Sousa in 1889. Since then, it has remained as one of his most popular marches throughout the United States and many countries abroad.

In 1889 the owners of The Washington Post newspaper requested that John Philip Sousa, the leader of the United States Marine Corps Band, compose a march for the newspaper's essay contest awards ceremony. Sousa obliged; "The Washington Post March" was introduced at the ceremony on June 15, 1889, and it became quite popular. It led to a British journalist dubbing Sousa "The March King". Sousa is honored in The Washington Post building for his contribution to the newspaper and his country.

The composition is now in the public domain in the US, as its copyright has expired

This recognizable march is written in standard form: IAABBCCDCDC. Written in 2/4 meter, it is suited as an accompaniment to the two-step, a new dance introduced in its time.

The first strain of the march (above) is famous and familiar to many. The march is played in a stately march tempo (110-120 beats/m; rarely over).

March enthusiasts have argued that the trio section's mellow and moving phrases are amongst Sousa's most musical. Six sudden eighth notes move the melody along, and its unusually calm breakstrain is a simple adaptation of the trio melody. It then moves on to the first trio repeat, where the low brass begins an even more mellow countermelody.

In 1952 Hollywood released a somewhat corny, but very entraining biopic about the life of John Phillip Sousa called “Stars and Stripes Forever.” The film is a biography of the composer John Philip Sousa, from his early days in the Marine Corps Band through the Spanish-American War in 1898. It stars Clifton Webb as Sousa and Ruth Hussey as his wife Jennie (Jane).

A few of the reviewers give the film very high marks, not so much for the acting but for the music:

“Clifton Webb does a fine work as the great band-master and composer of memorable marches who, on the 1890's, when he leaves the Marines Corps., forms his own concert band and travels around the world.

With the sensitive and beautiful Debra Paget as the singer-dancer, and the sympathetic and good-looking Robert Wagner as the horn player, the loving couple shares a real and firm part of the 'imagined' tale.

The great highlights of the picture are when a black choir is singing "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic," and the outstanding performance of "Dixie," played by Philip Sousa and his Orchestra as they enter the Cotton States Exposit John Philip Sousa was not only America's "March King," he was a skilled organizer and entertainer who also composed much music now thoroughly unknown to most Americans (and fans elsewhere). His life spanned the era of an optimistic, brash America where live music was the only music to the burgeoning and eventually triumphant victory of an insatiable technology that even in Sousa's lifetime was employed to record almost everything. Sousa benefited from the new world of recording and he can be heard on compact disc in his later years conducting his famed quasi-military band.

20th Century Fox enlisted a cadre of fine performers for a seamlessly entertaining biopic of John Philip Sousa with a nice, anachronistically innocent, fictional romance interwoven with the band leader/composer's story.

As Sousa Clifton Webb brings to life a character who was, as in reality, ambitious and driven to succeed. Sousa left the Marine Corps, where he led The President's Own, to start his hand-picked band. In uniforms which the leader designed, the outfit mirrored great military bands (of which the U.S., as opposed to England, had a clear shortage during Sousa's life). Sousa understood the importance of touring and he was light years ahead of the twentieth century's pops ensembles in making his musicians - and his music — as ubiquitous as travel of his day allowed. ion in Atlanta.”

I have seen this film several times with the latest last year on Turner Classic Movies. I found in very enjoyable — especially the music. It harkens me back to a time when people believed that this country was a place where you could make of yourself what you could out for the effort for.

On December 24, 1910, the Sousa Band embarked on a world tour. Although not the first group to travel around the world, the publicity generated was immense (although the financial rewards were only modest). Sousa's reputation, marches and recordings preceded him; he and the band were welcomed as conquering heroes at every port.

Sousa was in poor health at the beginning of the tour, having contracted malaria during hunting trip in the fall of 1910. After spending two weeks in the hospital, he met the band in mid-tour in Montreal and finished a series of "farewell" concerts before sailing from New York on December 24.

Here is a summary of their itinerary (for a complete list of tour stops, consult Paul Bierley's The Incredible Band of John Philip Sousa):

• Jan 9-Mar 3 1911: England, Ireland
• Mar 24-Apr 21: South Africa
• May 12-Aug 23: Tasmania, Australia, New Zealand
• Sep 10-Oct 15: Hawaii, Western Canada & U.S.
• Oct 23-Dec 1: Midwestern U.S. (TX, OK, KS, MO, NE, IA, WI, MN, MI, IL, OH)
• Dec 4-Dec 10: NY

In 1985 my wife and I traveled with my daughter’s high school band to Europe. One of the stops on the tour was in Lugano, Switzerland. Lugano is in the Italian speaking part of the Swiss Confederation. The band gave a concert on the Piazza della Riforma in the center of the town. It was a beautiful June evening and the cafes lining the Piazza were filled with patrons sipping their coffees or campari and listening to the concert. For their final number the band played Sousa’s Stars and Stripes. It took no time for the crowd to break out in rhythmic clapping to the beat of the march. I can still remember one of the band’s flute players who doubled on the piccolo flawlessly playing the famous trio. After the march was concluded the assembled crowd rose to their feet in a standing ovation. It’s difficult to say if it was the band’s performance or he familiarity of the tune. Perhaps it was a little of both.

Sousa, the child of immigrant parents gave this country a heritage of march music that will live as long of the stars and stripes fly above our capitol For this he should be remembered as a child of America and true patriot.