Where Oh Where Has ACORN Gone? Have the Nuts Multiplied?

      by Diane Rufino

On July 24, in the county seat of Greenville, NC, the Pitt County Board of Elections gave the green light to a revised plan for early voting which will include two Sundays.  The Board voted as such even though the majority of people and groups who turned out for a hearing on the plan opposed any voting at all on Sunday.  It was disclosed in that hearing that the request for Sunday voting came not from voters themselves but from two political organizations – “Organizing for America” (OFA) and the Democratic Party.  Both a local representative of OAF and Betsy Leech of the Democratic Party made a request to the Board for a 2-Sunday addition to early voting so that members of black churches can conveniently take advantage of church buses and vote en mass after service.

I wrote an Opinion Letter for my local paper where I took a stand criticizing the decision by the Board to approve Sunday voting and in that letter I equated “Organizing for America” with ACORN (“Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now”).  I was informed that my Opinion Letter would have to be revised to remove that reference to ACORN in order to be published.  I told the publisher that if he felt it necessary to remove it, then I would have no problem with his decision.  After all, as I explained to him, the reference was included more out of cynicism rather than factual journalism. I really just wanted to make the point, as written in that letter:

“Those in favor of Sunday voting claimed that Monday thru Saturday were not sufficient enough. They said that without Sunday voting, they would be disenfranchised, even though there wasn’t even an early voting period at all in Pitt County prior to 2000.  Opponents talked about the extent of the early voting period, the additional cost to taxpayers, the burden to poll workers (4 straight weeks without a day off), and the hostility of the plan to religious concerns.

The bottom line is that the plan advances the interests of a political party and not the interests of the majority of voters. Furthermore, the existing early-voting period, which provides extended hours at convenient locations for 2 1/2 weeks and allows 60 days for anyone to submit an absentee ballot, is an inclusive, neutral accommodation for ALL voters.  It is more than enough of an opportunity to get out and vote.  It is more than accommodating.  Anyone who is truly committed to exercising their right to vote will do so and will find the time and opportunity.  The Board ignored the legitimate concerns of the majority who opposed Sunday voting and instead endorsed a political agenda.”

But  that being said, there was a reason that I did make that particular reference to ACORN and I believe my cynicism is not completely unfounded.  I’d like to take this opportunity to explain why I felt justified.

The research I had done on “Organizing for America” after the hearing in front of the Pitt County Board of Elections on July 24 highlighted some connections with ACORN.  Tenuous connections?  Maybe.  Suspicious connections?  Maybe.  Of course, I’m not in a position to conclude which is most likely.  After all, with Obama, you’ll never be able to cut through all the layers of deception and corruption in order to find the truth.  We learned that first hand when he threw “transparency” out the window in his blind ambition to pass the healthcare bill.

Following the hearing, I immediately went to my computer. I wanted to find out exactly what this organization “Organizing for America” was all about.  When it was clear that this organization joined with the Pitt County Democratic Party to push for Sunday voting, I wanted to find out the connection.  I indeed found the connection and in doing so, it became very clear that the “community organizing” themes of ACORN are also evident in OFA and in its voter-registration arm, “Project Vote.”  In fact, in doing the research I had to walk away from the documents many times because the distinctions between OFA and PV were so blurred that I was getting too confused.

“Organizing for America” and “Project Vote”

Before Obama even took office in 2009, he announced that his election campaign, “Obama for America” (2008) was switching its name to “Organizing for America” (OFA).  According to the research, the president’s re-election campaign was formally launched and filed with the FEC in April 2011.  It includes the affiliate organization “Project Vote,” a 2012 voter-initiative project  Both OFA and PV operate out of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  ACORN, which worked closely with the Obama campaign in 2008, was forced to disband amidst allegations of voter fraud, election violations (resulting in over $775,000 in fines), embezzlement, and illegality (including the ‘pimping’ revelation. Thank you Breitbart!).  Up until the time it disbanded (or went underground, or re-formed under other names), ACORN was the largest radical leftist group in America.

[Obama was not honest about his relationship with ACORN during the 2008 election, even though records exist to support a close association. He worked alongside and protested with ACORN before he became an elected official, he trained ACORN employees, and he represented ACORN in court. There were even pictures of Obama meeting with ACORN leaders on its website before it was “scrubbed clean.” In 2008, ACORN canvassed for Obama and his campaign donated $800,000 to it for voter registration efforts.  Even though Congress voted to defund ACORN and its affiliates in 2009, that didn’t stop Obama from promoting a top ACORN operative, Patrick Gaspard, to a top post in the White House where he is helping to shape domestic policy.  Nor did it stop the Obama Administration from giving $560,000 to ACORN affiliates in 2010. “Obama may not know economics. His foreign policy is a disaster. He makes a horrible leader. But, he knows community organizing!”]

OFA was an outgrowth of the president’s 2008 election campaign.  It was/is referred to and organized as “Obama’s permanent campaign.”  It was created because the White House cannot legally use the 13 million email addresses that the campaign compiled in 2008.  OFA was organized to operate under the DNC so that the DNC can do the “dirty work.”  So, to that end, the political party set this “grassroots movement” up as a DNC ‘project’ to continue to promote and proselytize on behalf of Barack Obama’s behalf between elections. The countless emails that fill the inboxes of Americans all over the country with the sender name President Barack Obama, for example, are the work of “Organizing for America.”  The promotion of the healthcare bill with certain demographics is also the work of OFA.

“Organizing for America” is not subject to IRS nonprofit regulations because it has no independent legal status outside the DNC.  DNC financial filings disclose little about its structure and day-to-day operations. The party’s spending on the project is not separately accounted for in public disclosures, so its actual scope is difficult to determine.  And it’s probably safe to say that OFA likes it that way.

OFA is a unique creature.  It is creepy. It’s not a permanent political apparatus and is not intended to be. It’s goal is to serve only one man – Barack Obama. It’s a permanent personal apparatus built around one man, meant to reinforce his cult of personality.  It is meant to identify his unique racial status with those of the demographic he identifies with.  It is a “unique opportunity” to milk his ascension for all its worth.  As a representative of ACORN wrote in 2009:  ”ACORN’s grassroots leadership believes we are experiencing a once-in-a-generation opportunity and must not squander this moment.”  OFA is the machinery put in place to make sure the DNC doesn’t squander this moment –  the election of a man like Obama.  There has never been any intention of making the group a permanent component of the Democratic Party. OFA has precious little to do with any permanent goals of the DNC.  And “Project Vote” is its affiliate organization — its voter registration arm.

“Project Vote,” a Washington, DC-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, was organized to increase the votes of marginalized and under-represented voters (ie, minority voters, college-age voters, senior citizens, and gays/lesbians).  In August 2011, President Obama’s re-election campaign announced “Project Vote” as a campaign-within-a-campaign that is aimed at increasing registration and participation among his “Democratic base constituencies.” Obama and his representatives have declared that the goal is it to expand the electorate. As one official noted: “That’s how we won in 2008, and we think that’s the path to victory again in 2012…. Project Vote will drive our campaign strategy – from paid media, to digital outreach, to grassroots organizing and voter registration efforts – to communicate with and engage key demographic groups, such as African Americans, Youth, Latinos, LGBT, and others.”

Many refer to “Project Vote” as “ACORN’S sister organization” because ACORN tactics are clearly associated with it.  Others refer to “Project Vote” as “ACORN’S close 501(c)(3)-affiliate.”  And still others who have been following ACORN’s voter fraud allegations and convictions call Project Vote “the branch of ACORN that’s most notorious for voter fraud.”  Even Obama himself acknowledged:  “Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

Project Vote lists its field director as Amy Busefink.  Ms. Busefink is a former ACORN worker who was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit voter-fraud (in compensating people for the registration of voters).  Furthermore, one of the leaders of “Project Vote” is also a national director at “Organizing for America.”  The groups clearly share commonality and shared resources, even if only in knowledge, contacts, and expertise.

In fact, ACORN tactics have been associated with both “Project Vote” and “Organizing for America.”

In Virginia, the OFA improperly entered a high school, posing as a school official, and collected social security numbers. In a separate instance, in a voter drive, they are under investigation for registering Democrats but failing to submit the registration forms of those who checked the box labeled “republican.” (147 registration forms).

Carol Greenberg, an undercover investigative journalist, worked with OFA.  She was trained to enter voter data.  She said that she received an email alerting her to an “OFA Training Seminar” which informed her that there was to be a 4-hour session on community organizing – “the President’s way.”  At the bottom of the email were the words “Project of the DNC.”  Of course we all know that Obama helped train ACORN leaders. In 1992, he worked alongside the radical group.  [Note that Obama continues to deny that he had any connections with ACORN, but the truth is that when he ran “Project Vote” voter drives, he worked closely with ACORN and acknowledged how grateful he was for their  help].

According to research by Matthew Vadum, which he published, “Organizing for America” is a phony grassroots campaign run by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that is charged with duplicating the community organizing techniques that Obama learned from the teachings of his fellow Chicagoan, Saul Alinsky.  As Vadum has written, the Democrats recognize that the days when political parties could rest easy between elections are long gone and they must apply constant pressure and must send out a constant message, and so, OFA is the campaign apparatus dedicated to that task.  It is solely dedicated to singing the praises of the Obama administration, blaming others for failures, and enhancing the support of key demographics.  Furthermore, he has concluded that there is “no wall of separation” between Project Vote and ACORN (“Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now”) and that “with respect to registration and mobilization campaigns, ACORN and Project Vote work together to the point where it is a difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference.  They share staff, office space, and money.”

“Organizing for Obama” or “Organizing for America”:  Which is it? (The former is more likely)

Groups such as OFA, PV, and ACORN exist because of the perception that the United States is a nation rife with racism and injustice.  And who is it that perpetuates that myth?  None other than our president.  He talks about hardworking individuals paying “their fair share” (ie, paying more in taxes) so that those at the bottom can be further relieved of the consequences of their life choices.  He is the first to jump to conclusions when there is an incident involving a white policeman and a black suspect.  He is the first to perpetuate stereotypes when a black teen is killed under suspicious circumstances. He is the first to suggest that schools still treat black students differently than other students.  In fact, on July 26, he issued an Executive Order entitled “President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans.” This EO will establish a government panel to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”  In other words, schools will have to discipline black students less, or discipline other types of students more.  According to the EO: “African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline.” In order to pander to his constituency, he pretends that he doesn’t understand the reason for the high rate of discipline among black students.  He claims to be part of that community yet doesn’t seem to understand the real world.  According to Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, “A disproportionate share of crimes are committed by African Americans, and they are disproportionately likely to misbehave in school because more than 7 out of 10 African Americans (72.5%) are born out of wedlock – versus fewer than 3 out of 10 whites…  Although you won’t see it mentioned in the Executive Order, there is an obvious connection between the percentage of children born out of wedlock and how each group is doing educationally, economically, criminally.” What this will mean is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for in an attempt to level out the degree of punishment among ethnic groups.  This is the mentality behind the groping at airports by the TSA.  Homeland Security knows it just needs to profile one particular group but because that will set the ACLU into a frenzy, TSA must frisk, grope, and scan Miss America, little Johnny, and granny.

President Obama has also issued an Execute Order on June 15 in which he announced that the United States will stop deporting hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants who have been educated here in the country (high school diploma or GED) and will give them work permits.  Our chief law enforcement officer has announced that he will enforce federal laws selectively. Legal American citizens cannot break federal law or they will be punished, without a doubt.  Just ask anyone who earns enough money and has made an error on their tax return.  Ask any farmer who has inadvertently failed to make necessary filings with the EPA.

We have a President who, for the first time since the Civil Rights era, highlights race and pits races against one another.  By many accounts, he has set race relations way back.  He also pits the poor against the middle class and the wealthy.  Not in a very long time has the government encouraged the less fortunate to take note of what others have rather than encourage them to do more for themselves.  But apparently, his “community organizing” training must have taught him that pitting groups of people against each other is good policy.  Maybe it was Bill Ayers who taught him that, or Saul Alinsky, or even Reverend Wright.  Obama is a smart man and blindly and fatally ambitious, and so he would not pursue such a nationally harmful social policy if it did not translate into political support.  Never mind the history we’ve built over the  years of national unity.

Of course the message of racism and injustice is a self-serving message. He is the one who benefits most from it because of the work of such groups as OFA and PV.  He fuels the vicious cycle with his words and his policies.  For example, OFA and PV use their outlets to emphasize universal healthcare.  Why do they do this?  Why was universal healthcare such an important issue for ACORN?  According to an internal ACORN memorandum that Michele Malkin uncovered in August 2008, the reason is clear.  That memo read: “Over our 38 years, health care organizing has never been a major focus either nationally or locally for us.  But increasingly, our offices around the country are doing work on health care to build ACORN Power.”  The memo explains how the organization could then “parlay political victory on government-run health care to move our ACORN agenda forward…  or parts of it that we might not otherwise be able to pull off.”   In other words, the objective of ACORN in pushing universal healthcare – a socialist program, a program that ensures the poor an entitlement – is to piggyback the political power it will bring to improve their political longevity and power.  What will the next socialist program be?  Surely the race-based programs that Obama and Eric Holder have pursued will consolidate votes, right ?  Surely the forced redistribution of wealth will be another attractive scheme.

In 2010, there was a big push to show that ACORN was going away.  News outlets such as the NY Times, Politico, and others ran stories announcing its demise. After all, ACORN officials had been convicted of massive voter registration and election fraud.  But most believe it was merely just ‘smoke and mirrors.’  As one commentator wrote: “In an age of lawlessness, rules for some out of government favor, and special privileges for special classes, racketeers and criminals need only change their suit and their hat and live another day to rob, steal, cheat, and engage in human trafficking… “

But then other organizations, with strikingly similar themes and tactics arose….  “Project Vote” and “Organizing for America,” and others.  They use the same message of disenfranchisement and inequality that ACORN used and they organize communities in the same manner, using the same tactics.  ACORN is a Marxist/socialist organization that protests and demonizes capitalism.  They offer hope and change to minority groups, most of which are in poverty, by suggesting they can rise out of their poverty by demanding “their fair share” of the nation’s wealth.  Of course, the underlying message is that they must work together en masse to exert the political power they need to effect such “hope and change.”  There can be no doubt that this game-plan is still alive and well.  Obama is their champion because, for all intents and purposes, he is “one of them.”  He comes from their communities, he’s worked in their communities, and he himself is a minority.  He shares the same color skin.

This is not to suggest that ACORN targets see the office of the presidency as one open to affirmative action, but an African-American finally sitting in the office of the presidency is indeed a historic event.  It is a testament to our racial indifference.  But the office of the presidency, now in 2012, also faces another historic opportunity –  to look beyond race, to look beyond a “Saul Alinsky” type power play, and to look beyond “one’s fair share of the nation’s wealth” to save the nation from a crisis that threatens its security, its integrity, and its longevity as “the land of the free.”

On election night 2008, Obama had this to say: “This victory alone is not the change we seek… It is only the chance for us to make that change.”  We couldn’t have appreciated the significance of that statement at the time.  After all, he had no record to run on and the details of his life have been sealed from public scrutiny.  His Senate record is one that can be summed  up in one word – “Present.”  Now we know what kind of change Obama sought and continues to seek – the fundamental transformation of America.  We have a taste of that change and it isn’t compatible with the American spirit of liberty, ambition, and resourcefulness.  It hasn’t worked and it isn’t working.  It won’t work without destroying the fundamental institutions that protect the rights and interests of free men.  Americans won’t tolerate the downgrade.  They won’t embrace the notion of socialist policies and redistribution.  They understand what surely lies at the end of that road – the redistribution of poverty and mediocrity.

R. R. Reno writes, in his article The One Percent:  “Over the past fifty years, household income for the top 1 percent has grown from $200,000 (in today’s dollars) to $400,000. Meanwhile, household income for the bottom half of Americans has stayed flat, and would have fallen for many were it not for increased spending on government programs and the earned income tax credit. Liberals presume that the income gap is the problem. We need to combat income inequality, we are told, which means raising taxes on the winners in the global economy, so that the government can transfer even more wealth to the poor. Murray’s analysis is important because it indicates that this alone won’t reduce the growing and troubling divide between Americans, because the difference is more a function of moral character than income and assets. It’s the culture, stupid.”

Reno references a book by Charles Murray entitled Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010, in which the author talks about two different communities, each populated by one of two classes of people. One class includes those who are well-educated and professionally successful.  Murray calls this class the new upper class.  The other class includes those people with blue-collar or low-level office jobs and no academic degree more advanced than a high-school diploma. Murray says that these people make up the working class that is becoming America’s new lower class.  At least 85% of families remain intact in the upper class. The divorce rate mirrors that of the 50′s.  Family values are strong.  In the new lower class, however, less than 50% of young and middle-age adults are married. Their divorce rate is around 35%. Nearly 25% of children are being raised by single mothers. Only 30% of children are living with both biological parents by the time their mothers turn forty.  Among mothers who drop out of high school, 60% of their children are illegitimate. This collapse of marriage and the family unit, Murray writes, “calls into question the viability of white working-class communities as a place for socializing the next generation.”

Reno writes: ” There are other signs of crisis (in America). Prime-age white working-class males have increasingly dropped out of the full-time work force, and the same males are dramatically more likely to be in prison now than in 1960. Far fewer are likely to go to church or be involved in any civic or community organizations.

Murray comes up with a very useful measure of community dysfunction: the percentage of ‘problematic people,’ which he arrives at by combining prime-age males not making a living, single mothers raising children, a guesstimate of prime-age adults who are living alone, and those uninvolved in any community activity.”  In the past 50 years, the percentage of ‘problematic people’ has increased by over 30%.  “These statistical trends are among the reason why white working-class communities in America, whether in rural Iowa or ethnic Philadelphia, are more violent, less cohesive, and less pleasant places to live. Because we’re fallen creatures who tend toward lust, sloth, and greed, our communities require constant reinforcement and renewal. If the fundamental social mechanisms for renewal are diminished—marriage, parenting, productive work, interpersonal trust, and religious or communal involvement—then the social law of entropy takes over, which is what is happening today in poor American communities.”

Reno suggests that the plight of the lower class can be improved by emphasizing moral values. “Murray shows that if people at the bottom of the economic ladder have high work satisfaction, are married, experience levels of social trust, and engage in weekly worship, they have exactly the same self-reported happiness as upper class types who have the same qualities. This suggests that there is no inherent barrier to happiness for a person with a low level of education holding a low-skill job.” The problem, Reno writes, is that lower class communities do not have enough political and social support to encourage the sorts of attitudes and behaviors necessary for happiness.

“Far fewer in the lower class than in the upper class are married and go to church. Meanwhile, crime and a lack of communal engagement reduces social trust. One reason for this social disarray is a lack of a strong moral consensus.” Our crass and often crude popular culture deforms many lives, often glorified by the nonjudgmental ethic endorsed by the upper class Hollywood types, reality TV (Jersey Shore, for example), and the pop and hip-hop/rap music industry.  The lower class desperately needs the sorts of moral statements and investments by the wealthy entertainment industry in order to rebuild and re-focus the youth in their communities and help build the kind of character needed to advance to the upper class. But the entertainment industry continues to let them down.  It’s a money thing.  Hollywood types need their multi-millions, their million dollar estates, their New York penthouses, and their fancy cars and wardrobes.

This is the reality of America. Times have changed, but more importantly, people and values have changed.  But the values needed in a successful marketplace have not changed.  The bottom line is that people hold the power over their destiny and the key to their own success.

And so Americans need to look beyond the distorted messages of “Organizing for America” and “Project Vote” and their distorted statistics and distorted sense of fairness.  President Obama’s policies are not working. For the sake of redistributing our nation’s wealth and opportunities from those who have “earned success” to others less fortunate – without that one little “proviso” (which is “hard work and sacrifice !”) – our current administration has institutionalized punishment as its policy towards those who are successful. Success is taxed, berated, underappreciated, regulated, and then taxed some more. After all, Obama has to find some way to pay for the campaign promises he makes. He has to find some way to make a success story out of his unconstitutional, liberty-killing healthcare scheme.

Obama’s policies are causing people to question what our nation stands for.  Do we intend to excel, which means competition and reward must be honored, or do we sink to the depths of despair so that the success of some won’t offend other’s notion of fairness?  Do we intend to continue punishing success so that businesses cannot grow and create jobs?  Or do we want to push individual self-improvement policies so that more people can contribute meaningfully, feel the sense of pride in earned success, and not become fastened to the government teet?   Do we intend to trust ourselves to run our own lives and affairs or do we think a group of political elites in Washington DC can do a better job?  Are we willing to use our liberties wisely and responsibly and respectfully, or must government continue to promulgate laws to regulate our every move?

Obama’s policies and rhetoric are dividing us along racial and social lines. He is causing us to point fingers at one another and question the worth of every individual.  He is creating classifications such as liberal vs. rightwing extremistblack vs. whiteminority vs. non-minority (classifications on job applications are getting more and more numerous and detailed),  rich vs. pooreducated vs. uneducatedlegal vs. illegal, entitled vs. not entitledtaxpayer vs. non-taxpayertaxpayer vs. freeloadercontributor vs. taker,  “personally responsible” vs. dependent,  “those who are part of the problem” vs. “those who are part of the solution,”  and  the “haves” vs. the “have-nots.”  There are extremes.  People are no longer just fellow Americans.  They come with labels now.  And depending on those labels, we discriminate.  At least that’s what the government accuses us of.   But the fact is that every choice involves a discrimination of some sort.

Our president’s policies are also dividing us along ideological lines.  He is a progressive-thinker.  There is no doubt about it.  He believes in government socialist policies and relaxed social norms. Either you believe in big government or limited government. Either you believe in government-controlled healthcare or you don’t.  Either you believe the Constitution should be taken literally or you believe it has lost its relevance and therefore can be interpreted willy nilly. Either you believe that government should regulate the economy to ensure artificial results (government picking winners and losers) or you believe in the free market economy (competition determining winners and losers). Either you believe that the government should respect state laws (such as marriage, healthcare, voting integrity) or you believe that the government should require a “one size fits all” approach.  Either you believe in gay marriage or you don’t.  Either you believe in the sanctity of human life or you think the right to be free of an unwanted pregnancy at any time before delivery is more important.  Either you believe in amnesty for illegal immigrants or you don’t.  Either you believe in a fair tax scheme or you believe that only those who make “enough” should be forced to contribute to the funding of the country.  Either you see an inherent unfairness in half of Americans paying income tax to provide the revenue to fund the government while the other half pay nothing or you don’t.  Either you believe Joe Biden’s statement that it is the patriotic duty of the wealthy to pay even higher rates of taxation or you see an inherent unfairness in the  government confiscation of a person’s wealth and property.  Either you respect the contributions to this nation by the wealthy or you hate them and blame them for all our country’s ills. Either you believe in personal responsibility or you believe the government should relieve you of the consequences of your actions and decisions.  Either you believe it is the job of parents to raise their children and make decisions on their behalf or you believe that’s government’s job.  Either you believe in the forced government redistribution of wealth or you believe that the government’s job is to protect an individual’s life, liberty, and property so that he can enjoy the fruits of his own labor.  If you support Obama, you must support his progressive policies. And if you support his progressive policies, then you willingly agree to abandon or erode the noble principles on which our great country was founded.

In the ambitious quest for votes above the nation’s best interests, politics has become a game of extremes rather than common interests and solutions. We’ve become a nation of deep ideological differences.  A house divided cannot exist.

And the integrity of the house – OUR house – is what is at stake in this election.  Our nation’s soul shouldn’t be for sale because of the opportunity to capitalize on the election of a man that doesn’t look and think like the presidents before him.


References: Mike Allen, “Obama 2012 Launches Project Vote,” Politico, August 25, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html

“Key People – Barack Obama.” Referenced at:  http://www.p2012.org/candidates/obamaorg.html

Anita MonCrief, “Organizing for America: OFA and the DNC: ACORN 2.0,” The NextRight, June 3, 2010.  Referenced at:  http://www.thenextright.com/category/blog-tags/organizing-for-america

Matthew Vadum, “Organizing for America: The Democratic Party’s Community Organizing Campaign to Promote Barack Obama,” Capital Research, May 2010.    Referenced at:  https://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1272918455.pdf

Anita MonCrief, “An Inside Look at Obama’s Organizing for America Pt 1,”  Hot Air, February 1, 2010.  Referenced at:  http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/01/an-inside-look-at-obamas-organizing-for-america-part-i/

Anita MonCrief, “An Inside Look at Organizing for America Pt II: ACORN for America?” Hot Air, February 2, 2010.  Referenced at:  http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/02/an-inside-look-at-organzing-for-america-part-ii-acorn-for-america/

Nicholas Stix, ” Obama Signs Executive Order Granting Black Students Carte Blanche to Engage in School Violence and Disruption,” Nicholas Stix Uncensored, July 28, 2012.  Referenced at: http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-signs-executive-order-granting.html

R.R. Reno, “The One Percent,” First Things, March 2, 2012.

Jim Hoft, “Former ACORN Official Gets $445 Million from US Government,” Free Republic, June 8, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2893067/posts


       by Diane Rufino

There is a growing movement in my state of North Carolina, as well as other states, to Nullify the federal healthcare bill.  The Supreme Court’s disingenuous decision to uphold the Individual Mandate as a valid exercise of the Congress’ taxing power has evidenced an unwillingness on any branch of the federal government to honor the sovereignty of the individual.  The decision clearly puts our country on the dark path to government tyranny.

But there is no need to label me a fanatic or a right-wing alarmist. I only write about what I observe and what I know to be true.  And I’ve been observing that Americans and state representatives all over the country are taking notice of the powerful State sovereignty doctrine known as Nullification. Although this doctrine is based on our founding principles, the term itself was not articulated until 1799 when Thomas Jefferson wrote a series of resolutions to address the unconstitutionality of the Alien & Sedition Act.  Those resolutions, known as the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, state as follows:

If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal compact (ie, the US Constitution), an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction, contended by the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY:  That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien and Sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the Constitution…..”

Jefferson believed it was up to the States, the parties who drafted and ratified the Constitution and thus created the federal government to stand up to the government when it exceeds constitutional bounds.  The states, he wrote, have the unquestionable right to judge whether the government has usurped power from the states or the people (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).  He called Nullification the “Rightful Remedy” to keep the federal government constrained by the limited delegations of power granted by the states.

I know this a concept which is foreign to progressives and something that liberal universities prefer to keep hidden in historical record or teach as an outdated, racist doctrine, but the fact is that it is as vital and relevant as any of the other principles of government on which our system is based.  It is an important check and balance and it is inherent in the system of Dual Sovereignty.  The guarantees of the Declaration of Independence can only be protected if the government operates according to the Constitution’s limitations.

Perhaps the reason this concept has been receiving so much attention is because it was articulated by our most revered Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson, the author of our charter of freedom and James Madison, the father of our Constitution (see the Virginia Resolves of 1798 and The Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800).  It is an American remedy.  Perhaps the reason it is criticized is because it’s not found in the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” playbook or in the Communist Manifesto.  It doesn’t further the concentration of government.  Furthermore, Jefferson and Madison opposed slavery so it was not, as liberals allege, a racist doctrine.

And so, nullification groups have popped up all over the country.  The topic is spreading like wildfire. Nullification groups are even organizing in North Carolina, a state which has spent years sucking up to the federal government.  At the meeting the other night, one person asked whether certain provisions of the NC state constitution might present a legal barrier to members introducing nullification bills.  Another asked whether it was a dangerous remedy and likely to escalate to secession.  I’d like to spend the rest of this article addressing these concerns.

The provisions in the North Carolina state constitution that the gentleman was referring to are Article I, Section 4 (“Secession Prohibited”) and Article I, Section 5 (“Allegiance to the United States).  I don’t believe either provision presents a barrier to Nullification.

Article I, Section 5 states:  “Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.”  This provision merely restates the theme of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, Section 2).  State laws must not challenge the federal government in those areas it is expressly permitted by the Constitution to regulate.

Our federal system of government and the Tenth Amendment tell us that there is a purposeful tension between two sovereigns.  With respect to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, which are “few and defined” (James Madison, in Federalist No. 45), the government is sovereign and the states must yield their power.  But as to all other powers and responsibilities, these are reserved to the states and thus they are sovereign.  The federal government, therefore, must yield to the states.  The tension has always been palpable and almost always, the federal courts have taken the federal government’s side.  But just because the trend seems to show that the federal government is taking power it was not originally granted, or delegated, by the states, it does not mean that Article I, Section 5 of the NC constitution is a carte blanche allegiance provision. It is to be observed responsibly, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the original intent of the US Constitution.  States are entitled to err on the side of their sovereignty. After all, they contemplated, drafted, debated, and eventually ratified the Constitution with specific designs for the Union. The federal government was THEIR creation.

Dr. Frankenstein and Igor created the monster; the monster didn’t create them.  The individual nations of the world joined created NATO and not the reverse.

Article I, Section 4 states:  ”This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.”  This section is extremely offensive and is an insult to every North Carolinian who died in the Civil War believing in the sovereign right of self-determination and trying to preserve the notion that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence  – “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Article I, Section 4 conflicts directly with the Declaration of Independence, as well as contradicts the very legal basis that underlies our government – the Compact Theory of the Union.

The Compact Theory was discussed even before the states ratified the Constitution.  Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote separately to propose that the Constitution be based on this principle. Under the Compact Theory of Federalism, the United States is made up of a voluntary union of States that agreed to a set of conditions on how they will be organized and governed.  The Union was created by compact – or agreement (contract).  They agreed to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states did not and could not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights. Under this theory, states can determine if the federal government has violated its agreements because they are the rightful parties who understand the terms and intent of the compact.  The federal government was a CREATION of the compact and NOT a party to it.  The compact theory states that our federal government was formed through an agreement by all of the states.

The Compact Theory is subject to the law of compact (or contract).  And as with all contracts and agreements, the federal compact is limited by its language and by the intent when it was entered into.  It is only legally enforceable under such conditions.  In other words, the government is only legal for the specific purpose it was ratified for and under the precise terms (except for amendments properly adopted through the Article V amendment process).

Most states subscribe to this theory as the principle that underlies their bonds to the Union. Look at the articles of secession submitted by the southern states.  For example, South Carolina explained:

“Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.”   (the Supreme Court is not a neutral arbiter)

Also, just ask the state of Montana. In 2008, while it was waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand down its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (second amendment case), the Montana State Legislature passed a resolution – H.J. 26 – asserting its state sovereignty and announcing that if the Supreme Court failed uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to have and bear arms, then the state of Montana would consider it a fatal breach of the Compact and therefore it would nullify and void its bonds with fellow states.  In other words, it threatened secession if the Supreme Court took away gun rights.

[Heller was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws.  The District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked.  A group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The government claimed the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard, and is not an individual right.  The federal district court in DC sided with the government and upheld the federal ban on private gun ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed.  With four liberals on the Court who believed that the second amendment was only a collective right and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice who sits on the fence, the right to have and bear arms was precariously close to being destroyed, and the state of Montana was not willing to take it lightly].

In short, Article I, Section 4 condemns the state of North Carolina to be a federal cling-on rather than a sovereign state, comprised of sovereign individuals.  We are not wards of the state, eternally and perpetually bound to their schemes and design of governance.  The provision declares in the loudest of terms that the issue of state sovereignty was settled at Appomattox in 1865.  I would be surprised to find many North Carolinians who believe that in their hearts.  They are proud and patriotic.

There should be no concern that either provision of the North Carolina state constitution would bar any state representative from rightfully interposing the state between the helpless citizens and a power-hungry federal government.

The second question asked was whether nullification is risky and likely to escalate to secession. Ideally, the purpose of nullification is to address usurpations of power so that secession could be avoided.  Of course, that requires that the federal government respect the state’s right to invoke nullification and enforce their nullification bills.

In 1796, in response to the Quasi War with France, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts to quash any false, misleading, scandalous, hateful, contemptuous, or defamatory communication concerning the government, the President (John Adams), or Congress (or individual members thereof).  Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment’s rights of free speech and press. The question became: What can be done to protect the people from an act of government that exceeds constitutional authority?   (What can be done if the government violates the very Constitution which defines it?)  Jefferson said there were three viable options:  Judicial review, Nullification, and Secession.  He didn’t trust the courts to interpret the Constitution faithfully and thought secession was too extreme.  He concluded that the “rightful remedy” was nullification.  If successful, there would be no need for the extreme measure of secession.

John Calhoun, the famous Senator from South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, viewed nullification in the same way.  Calhoun was a strong supporter of the doctrine and helped his state put forth an ordinance to nullify the federal tariffs (“Tariffs of Abomination”).  The full title read: “An Ordinance to Nullify Certain Acts of Congress of the United States Purporting to be Laws Laying Duties and Imposts on the Importation of Foreign Commodities.”  Although President Andrew Jackson believed South Carolina was heading towards secession, Calhoun assured that South Carolina was committed to the Union and did not want to secede.  It just wanted the government to stop using its power to inflict such economic harm on the South.

In 1831, a year before the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun wrote: “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail.”

He continued:

“So numerous and diversified are the interests of our country, that they could not be fairly represented in a single government..  A plan was adopted best suited to our situation and perfectly novel in its character. The powers of government were divided, not, as heretofore, in reference to classes, but geographically. One General Government was formed for the whole, to which were delegated all the powers supposed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all the States, leaving others subject to the separate control of the States, being, from their local and peculiar character, such that they could not be subject to the will of a majority of the whole Union, without the certain hazard of injustice and oppression.

It was thus that the interests of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the whole, while the peculiar and local interests were left under the control of the States separately, to whose custody only they could be safely confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitutional compact, to which all the States are parties, constitutes the peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly and emphatically American, without example or parallel.

To realize its perfection, we must view the General Government and those of the States as a whole, each in its proper sphere independent; each perfectly adapted to its respective objects; the States acting separately, representing and protecting the local and peculiar interests; and acting jointly through one General Government, with the weight respectively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and protecting the interest of the whole; and thus perfecting, by an admirable but simple arrangement, the great principle of representation and responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each to move in its prescribed orbit, is the great and difficult problem, on the solution of which the duration of our Constitution, of our Union, and, in all probability, our liberty depends. How is this to be effected?

The question is new, when applied to our peculiar political organization, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are represented by distinct but connected governments; but it is, in reality, an old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in any government; whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of the ages have devised but one mode by which such political organization can be preserved,–the mode adopted in England, and by all governments, ancient and modern, blessed with constitutions deserving to be called free,–to give to each co-estate the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of the others, in order to protect against encroachments the interests it particularly represents; a principle which all of our constitutions recognize in the distribution of power among their respective departments, as essential to maintain the independence of each; but which, to all who will duly reflect on the subject, must appear far more essential, for the same object, in that great and fundamental distribution of powers between the General and State Governments.

So essential is the principle, that, to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to consolidate, in the one left in the exclusive possession of the right, all powers of government; for it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the right to take what powers in pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the distribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The reason is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown.

The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, ‘to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.’ This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may, — State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.

With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make ‘its discretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;’ and that, ‘in all cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.’  Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced.”

He concluded by addressing the secession question:

“If the right to interpose did not exist, the alternative would be submission and oppression on one side, or resistance by force on the other.  That our system should afford, in such extreme cases, an intermediate point between these dire alternatives, by which the Government may be brought to a pause, and thereby an interval obtained to compromise differences, or, if impracticable, be compelled to submit the question to a constitutional adjustment, through an appeal to the States themselves, is an evidence of its high wisdom: an element not, as is supposed by some, of weakness, but of strength; not of anarchy or revolution, but of peace and safety.  Its general recognition would of itself, in a great measure, if not altogether, supersede the necessity of its exercise, by impressing on the movements of the Government that moderation and justice so essential to harmony and peace, in a country of such vast extent and diversity of interests as ours; and would, if controversy should come, turn the resentment of the aggrieved from the system to those who had abused its powers (a point all-important), and cause them to seek redress, not in revolution or overthrow, but in reformation. It is, in fact, properly understood, a substitute, — where the alternative would be force, — tending to prevent, and, if that fails, to correct peaceably the aberrations to which all systems are liable, and which, if permitted to accumulate without correction, must finally end in a general catastrophe.”

We see, then, that nullification is not intended as a threat of possible secession.  It is a peaceful plea to the federal government to faithfully honor the Constitution.  So, if the government grows hostile to any state that uses nullification to declare an act of the government unconstitutional and that hostility leads to secession, then the fault of secession lies not with the state but with the  government. The power to restore the design of the federal compact lies with the government. The power to prevent secession lies in the conduct of Washington DC.

No one wants the Union to dissolve.  No one wants a state to be so frustrated and so apathetic and so rebellious with the federal government that its only effective solution is to dissolve its bonds with fellow states so that it is relieved of allegiance to an oppressive or controlling federal government.  But if Americans are devoted to keeping the American ideal alive – that government serves the people and not the other way around – than secession must always be recognized as not only a fundamental sovereign right but also a viable option.  It was certainly the option our founding patriots took when they adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence.  That document, most clearly and straightforwardly, was a secessionist document.  It announced “to a candid world” that the colonies endured a history of repeated injuries and usurpations at the hands of King George and  were therefore dissolving their bonds with Great Britain.  Thomas Jefferson wrote:  “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connections between them and the State of Great Britain, are and ought to be totally dissolved..”

Lincoln got it wrong.  He engaged the South in a costly war to save the Union because he believed it was meant to be a perpetual Union.  America was never promised to be a perpetual Union.  It was promised to be the land of perpetual freedom.  If the independent sovereign colonies had the right to be free and to dissolve their political bonds with a tyrannical government in 1776, why do they have any less of a right under the same circumstances?

Some have laughed at this sentiment. Many believe that the government would never allow any state to withdraw from the Union.  Some look at the legal issues and wonder how a state can legally secede if no federal court will recognize the right of secession.  [The only Supreme Court decision which addressed secession was Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), which was written by Justice Salmon Chase.  Chase was appointed by Abraham Lincoln as a cabinet member and was a leading Union figure during the war against the South and so it was no surprise his decision was a regurgitation of  Lincoln’s premise for war.  He wrote: “The act which consummated Texas’ admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States.”]

Since the government enacted martial law in the South (thus treating the southern states as a conquered land) put strict conditions on the Confederate states for “re-admission to the Union,” it is clear the government didn’t even believe its own story.

The authority for secession comes from man’s humanity and vests in every sovereign. The right of a people to abolish their government is a fundamental right, just as the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property are.  As Jefferson said: “God who gave us life gave us liberty.”  Liberty is indivisible from life itself.   This right of a people to abolish government is grounded in the inherent right of self-protection (individuals can protect their lives and property).  When people are organized into communities and reside in a particular state, that state itself possesses the sovereign powers that the people themselves would have had if they had not delegated it for collective and  mutual benefit.  States do not need permission from the federal government to dissolve the political bonds binding them to the Union. They need no permission from fellow states (although they might wish some support).  They certainly don’t need permission from any of the federal courts.

The Declaration of Independence reads:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The US Constitution begins with the words “We the People.”  This is immensely significant because it evidences the understanding that the power of the government derives from the people.  The power derives from the people because in this country we acknowledge that individuals are the true sovereigns. This concept mirrors the themes highlighted in Jefferson’s Declaration. The Declaration is the WHY and the Constitution is the HOW.

This emphasis on “We the People” is quite different from what we’ve seen in history in other countries. Governments have been fashioned by Kings, established by tyrants, or forced on a conquering population. The rights of the people were always an after-though – a second thought.  The interests of the King or the tyrant or the conqueror always came first.  Governments were always top down until the US Constitution was written.  In the United States, we have a bottom-up structure.  Power bubbles up from the people.  It transfers to a government which in turn serves them.  It was not supposed to serve itself.  The Constitution is a document that protects the individual from the conduct of government.  It is a document used to enforce law on government – not on people. It is designed to limit government and not to limit citizens.

Our Founding Fathers came up with a special, unique formula, which it memorialized in the Constitution (and in the Federalist Papers) – that “limited government” equals “maximum individual liberty.”

Governments established for the benefit of the individual are created by compact – an inherent agreement by the people to obey laws in return for the protection of their rights and the service of their liberty interests. After all, what is an individual’s liberty interest in life and property worth if he can’t leave his home in order to work and travel because he must protect his family and property from evil-intentioned individuals?  Many governments are evidenced by a constitution, although it isn’t necessary. Written instruments are preferred because they set out in particular detail the relationship between the People and government. Governments are supposed to be limited. While some laws are necessary to promote and even enlarge individual liberty, too many laws burden liberty and oppress people.  The balance shifts.  Instead of protecting and serving the People, it becomes their master.  And then that is when we get to the point where the People review the situation and decide whether it is appropriate to form a different compact, or as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated: “to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It only makes sense that a nation founded on the sovereignty of the individual would allow individuals to abolish their government.

I certainly don’t advocate secession. We lost almost 620,000 young men when the South seceded from the Union and Lincoln fought to deny them that opportunity.  But as I wrote earlier, it has to be an option as a matter of last resort otherwise we slide down the path to tyranny without a way to salvage the liberty that our revolutionary patriots fought for and which our Founders secured for us.

It is said that nations typically follow a predictable path of progression: From bondage to spiritual faith; then from spiritual faith to great courage; then from courage to liberty; then from liberty to abundance; then from abundance to complacency; then from complacency to apathy; then from apathy to dependence; and finally, from dependence back into bondage.  We are at the “dependency” stage.  We think the federal government – all branches – are the answer.  We see it every time we hear people make such outrageous claims as “home ownership” is a right and “healthcare is a right” and “entitlements are a right.”  Every time a people believes that government should give them something and therefore relieve them of the “opportunity” to provide such things for themselves, then they, in effect, hand those ‘opportunities’ back to the government.  Each “opportunity” is indeed an exercise of Liberty.  It is an opportunity to use the inherent rights and abilities granted to us by our Creator to achieve.  We are squandering our opportunities by trusting government to take care of us.

We assume that the government – all branches – are the interpreters and final arbiters of what the Constitution means, what the government’s powers are, what government should do, and what laws the people MUST obey.  (A perfect example is the desire of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to have a second amendment case reach the Supreme Court again after another liberal justice has been appointed to the Supreme Court so they can “get it right this time.”  District of Columbia v. Heller was a narrow 5-4 decision. These liberal justices believe strongly in government gun control – despite the overwhelming authority to the contrary – and Ginsberg has already gone public urging another case to come before the high court “after Obama wins a second term.”)

If our early patriots understood the inherent violation of liberty rights in a relatively small tax on tea, is it no wonder that today’s patriots are urging the revival of nullification over the blatant violation of liberty rights in the coercive federal healthcare bill?  If our early patriots rebelled over the fact that they forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others (the English), it is no wonder today’s patriots are in an uproar over the fact that a certain segment of our population is being forcibly taxed to serve the purposes of others?

It is no wonder that critical mass has been reached and nullification is being talked about as the only option remaining to get government back in line. Hope for other options ended with the Supreme Court’s decision of the healthcare bill.  There would be no commonsense voice from the Supreme Court.  There will be no repeal of the bill in this session or even the next.  If Obama is re-elected, the republic is effectively dead.  Nullification is the only answer.  It provides the path from dependency back to liberty.  It puts power back in the hands of the state and to the people.  It is the rightful remedy for a people who rightfully deserve to enjoy freedom without oppressive and coercive policies of government.

Thomas Jefferson lives again in the hearts and minds of those who desperately want to save the republic. And it’s great to have him back.

“My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty. Land where my fathers died; land of the pilgrims’ pride.  From every mountainside, let freedom ring.”


Diane Rufino, “Nullification: A Concept Whose Time Has Come”  August 2011.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

Diane Rufino, “Secession: Does a State Have the Right to Secede From the Union?”  August 2011.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).  Referenced at:  http://constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 579 (2008).

John C. Calhoun, “Fort Hill Address: On the Relations of the States and the Federal Government,” in the book: Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, ed. Ross M. Lenace (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992).  Referenced at The Online Library of Liberty.:  http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=683&chapter=107120&layout=html&Itemid=27

A Government “FOR” the People?

       by Diane Rufino, 29, 2012

What a sad day when the Supreme Court loses sight of what the Constitution’s purpose is – to protect the rights of individuals, and not to take them away.  Historically, we’ve come to expect this from Congress and the President, but not the Supreme Court.

In our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..”  With those words, he defined the character of our new nation. He then cited several“injuries and usurpations” by King George against the colonies which justified our secession from England, including “taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Government….” Today, not only does the federal government NOT secure our rights but it is doing the very same thing King George was guilty of … “altering fundamentally our form of government.” All three branches are guilty.

Jefferson never trusted the Supreme Court. He saw it as part of the problem.  For one, it was itself a branch of the federal government and thus not an impartial arbiter.  He warned: “If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow– regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other limits on government power.”

But it’s been the people who’ve allowed the power grab to continue because they  like the freebies. They like being taken care of.  A people who would trade freedom for comfort are a people who are in need of a master and deserve one.

I hope you’ll think twice about voting to re-elect King George in November.