About forloveofgodandcountry

I'm originally from New Jersey where I spent most of my life. I now live in North Carolina with my husband and 4 children. I'm an attorney

QUIZ: How Well Do You Know our Founding Documents, Publications, Speeches, and Court Opinions

FOUNDING DOCUMENTS

by Diane Rufino, November 12, 2019

For my TEA Party meeting last night, I put together a QUIZ for members to work on at their seats to see how well they are able to identify and recognize our country’s founding and otherwise critical defining documents. The QUIZ contains excerpts from 30 documents or speeches.

I put together this particular QUIZ for a reason.

It is rare to find anyone these days who has read or even understands some of the crucial documents on which our country was founded. It is even rarer for our children to be taught in school about them and their significance. No one teaches the genealogy of our Constitution or our Bill of Rights, or even has the intellectual integrity to point out the meaning and intent of its provisions and its guarantees. But each of our founding documents and each of the historical documents that contributes to their drafting and meaning is significant. They all are very significant. Our early documents define our country, they convinced our early countrymen to be mindful of their liberties and to be protective and defensive of them. They convinced them that in order to preserve those rights and to safeguard them here in America, they would need to separate from Great Britain and to fight for their right to be independent. And we are so glad they did.

Today we are vilified for quoting our Founding documents, for glorifying our Founding Fathers, for daring to remind Americans what our Constitution means and what government is SUPPOSED to be doing. In fact, as soon as Obama took office, he had his Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, draft new guidance for the Department. And she did; it was titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” She issued it in April 2009, just 2 months after Obama took the oath of office. In this “guidance,” which she sent to all law enforcement offices across the nation, the people most likely to cause problems (that is, to become radicalized) were not Islamic fundamentalists or other militant Muslims, but rather, were conservatives such as veterans (who cling to their guns), such as those who are religious (who cling to their religion), such as those in Tea Party groups (who cling to the Founding Fathers), such as those who are in Tenth Amendment groups and who are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. You can see the general trend. According to Obama and Napolitano, police should be keeping their eyes on these types of individuals…… on people like us.

So, what I’m saying is that for 8 years, it was actually fairly dangerous to be in a Tea Party group, to be advocating for the Second Amendment, to be standing up for the Constitution, and to be quoting our Founding Fathers.

But if our republic is to survive, we must stand up for the Constitution (AS WRITTEN) and we must continue to quote and to teach others about what our Founding Fathers wrote, spoke, and advocated for.

We are going through a tough time in our country now – watching while a diseased political party, the Democratic Party, tries to dismantle and discredit a president and an administration that was selected and supported by a majority of the people. They are attempting the unthinkable – a political coup d’etat. It won’t work, of course, but Democratic leaders have the absolute audacity to aggressively work against the majority of the American people and to work against the Constitutional system in place that has legally and rightfully given rise to the election of Donald J. Trump. I can think of nothing more UN-AMERICAN… more TREASONOUS than that.

One thing that troubles me so greatly is how Rep. Adam Schifty-Schiff is misrepresenting the phone conversation between Trump and the Ukraine president Zelensky and how the Democratic-controlled House Intelligence Committee (I call it the House sub-Intelligence Committee) is emphasizing how certain individuals took the conversation to mean that Trump was engaging in quid-pro-quo coercion with Zelensky in order to get information on Hunter Biden. The transcript shows otherwise. President Trump, the party to the conversation, says there was no quid-pro-quo coercion and no intent to do so. In such instances, it is the SUBJECTIVE intent that rules and not what OTHER PEOPLE think the president meant in his conservation. If we don’t like someone, we can always find a way to skew their words and re-characterize what they said or did.

Look at the HYPOCRISY……   When Obama was president, he came out and personally told the American people that he was absolutely sure that Hillary Clinton had no intent to break any federal laws by setting up and using a private server in her home. It may have been an oversight, but it was not reckless. By saying this, he told the American people that she lacked the requisite intent to be guilty of breaking the Espionage Act and other federal laws about communicating using anything other than a government server.

Obama similarly did his best to publicly exonerate Lois Lerner, his head of the IRS, for her blatant and unconscionable mis-deeds. Remember how Lois Lerner targeted applications by TEA Party groups and other Liberty and Constitution groups and denied them tax-exempt status? I know TEA Party groups and TEA Party leaders who were affected by Lerner and who were harassed by her. Yet Obama defended her actions again and again. In the end, her targeting was so pervasive and so clearly discriminatory that an Independent Auditor found that she absolutely abused the IRS in order to silence TEA Party groups for the 2012 election. Lerner was allowed not to testify about what she did, she was allowed to retire and to keep her pension and also, to receive a handsome bonus.

It must be nice to have the government covering your back and to be rewarded for breaking the law.

Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch lied repeatedly about the secret meeting and conversation she had with Bill Clinton in a plane on the tarmac the day before she was to announce whether charges would be filed against his wife. She said they talked (for 45 min) about yoga and the grandkids. No one believed her. But the government did. It backed her story. I call that COLLUSION. I call that OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

And head of the FBI… lying, leaking James Comey came out and publicly did the very same thing that Obama did. He told the American people that Hillary Clinton lacked the requisite mindset to break any federal laws by using a private server. He did it the same way that Obama did it – by misrepresenting the primary statute (substituting different language for the actual language). Then he announced that the Department of Justice would not bring an indictment against her. This was a total breach of protocol because the FBI only addresses the evidence collected but leaves the ultimate decision to the Attorney General. Comey relieved Loretta Lynch of making the ultimate decision (and hence being responsible for it).

Yet the Democrats NOW are bending 180 degrees in the opposite direction…. There is nothing nefarious or criminal to accuse Trump of, and so instead, they are twisting his words, bringing in people to malign him, and going down the Impeachment path — something that arguably should have been done to Obama.

Now more than ever, we need to re-connect to our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our Founding documents, our Founding Fathers, our founding era, and other documents, rulings, speeches, etc that have had a profound effect on our country and have defined what we stand for. We need to quote from these documents. We need to teach them to our children. We need to use their language.

Back in our founding era, people were essentially good, God-fearing people. They weren’t criminals, drug-dealers, drug addicts, welfare addicts, illegals, socialists, terrorists, domestic terrorists, mental defectives, lazy morons…….   They knew right from wrong, they valued hard work, they had a work ethic (you don’t work, you don’t eat), they were productive. That is not what we have in America today. Half of Americans are hard working and productive, but we all know that too many are not. They are taking from those who have taken the initiative to become educated, who have ambition to work, and those who are making decent money. In other words, they are almost parasitic. Like any other true parasite, they attach to a healthy host and in the process make it less healthy. That defines our country today. Trump is trying to create so many jobs that there can be no excuse for dependency and for living and existing on welfare.

When our Founders wrote our founding documents, when they spoke their impassioned words in support of Liberty, they were understood to be acting in good faith, with proper ethics, as a patriot, concerned for the continued health and integrity of our country, concerned for the continued security of individual liberty, and advocating for good over evil, right over wrong. In interpreting their words and themes, we always understood that they were to be read in such light. Today, our diseased Democrats read the Constitution…..

OH WAIT….. They DON’T READ the Constitution. It couldn’t be more obvious. And then we have the brilliant Nancy Pelosi who laughs at reporters and laughs at the American people who question if she has consulted the Constitution before moving forward with bills and obstructionist policies. She doesn’t have time for that.

Today, our diseased Democrats read statutes, read policies, interpret laws and the like in a light that totally contradicts how they were written. Instead of reading the Declaration as a liberty document, they condemn it as the product of a man who owned slaves. Instead of reading the Constitution as a liberty document, they condemn it as a document for white men, designed to enshrine slavery. Instead of reading Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting the civil rights of certain clearly-defined groups from discrimination in the workplace, they want it to protect all groups that are outside the traditional norm. “Banning discrimination in the workplace on account of sex” was intended to protect just the rights of women. LBGT groups want the courts to expand the meaning to include gays and lesbians. Transgenders want the courts to expand the meaning to include individuals who are born one way (and still look essentially that way) but who “identify” as something different. They want Bob, who looks like Bob, and who has Bob’s body parts, but who now wants to dress up as Betty, to be absolutely protected in the workplace. The SCOPE change of Title VII is NOT the role of the courts. The Legislature wrote it and if they want to include special protections for other groups – then it must be the legislature to amend its language. And it must be the members of Congress who are willing to take their chances with their constituency at election time. These cases were heard last month by the Supreme Court, by the way. They heard them on the second day of the 2020 Supreme Court session.

Anyway, I hope this QUIZ, which I have copied and included below, will help us all to become educated and to help educate others, such as family members and friends. And I hope we will go back to the tradition of reading and understanding what our Constitution means and what our country actually stands. I hope we will once again realize that the Constitution is OUR document – the People’s document. The Declaration articulated the inalienable right of a people to form a government suitable to secure their inalienable and essential liberty and civil rights and the equal right to alter or abolish that government when it fails to serve them effectively. A constitution is a permanent manifestation of the powers that the People willingly delegate to their government as well as the limitations they impose on it. A constitution establishes the necessary boundaries to government in order that People can live their lives exercising their God-given liberties. I hope we will return to the view that the United States is special place on Earth where individual freedom and liberty are protected and are secured from the advances and intentions of government. And finally, I hope that we realize once again that our Constitution was written to govern a population of mostly religious and moral people. As John Adams once warned: “It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

If you have time, please take the QUIZ and see what you know:

 

TEA PARTY QUIZ: NAME THE DOCUMENT

1). “….. 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.”

2). “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

3). “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

4). “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

5). Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!

Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

6). “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

7). “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

8). (12) No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ (ie, tax) may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied…

(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs…….

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

9). “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…. “

10). “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

11). “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.”

12). “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.”

13). “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “

14). “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

15). “Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”

16). “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

17). “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

18). “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

19). “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

20). “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’   …. The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.

21). “.. For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

22). “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

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

24). “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

25). “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

26). “Gentlemen may cry, ‘Peace, Peace!’ but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

27). “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old—fashioned fellow.”

28). “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

29). “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.”

30). The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

 

THE ANSWERS:

1). The Declaration of Independence (second paragraph)

2). The Fourteenth Amendment (section 1). The Fourteenth Amendment is the provision of the Constitution under which most of our law suits are filed. It is the provision that addresses civil rights, equal protection, due process, etc. at the “state” level. If the Supreme Court ever agrees to take up a case addressing “birthright citizenship” (of illegals), it will have to interpret the first part of this section which talks about “citizenship.”

3). The Second Amendment

4). Federalist Papers No. 45 (authored by James Madison) – This essay explains the scope of the Tenth Amendment. Notice that the rights of the states are “numerous and indefinite” while those of the federal government were intended to be “few and defined.” That hardly seems the case today. But this is a very important essay; extremely important to explain the meaning and scope of the Constitution, and especially the doctrine of dual sovereignty. The Supreme Court should be using this essay in its analyses and should be citing to it in its rulings.

5). The National Anthem

6). First Amendment (Notice there is no phrase “Wall of Separation” included in this amendment to define the boundaries of religious freedom).

7). Eighth Amendment

8). The Magna Carta, signed in 1215 between King John and the English barons. I have included three sections: (12) This articulates the general rule that no taxes should be levied on persons unless they have representation in the government body that has the authority to pass such taxes (“No Taxation Without Representation!”). (13) This appears to be the early roots to our Ninth Amendment. (39) This is the early roots to the doctrine of DUE PROCESS. The Magna Carta goes on to state the following: “The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter…. Should such a thing be procured [which causes any of these concessions or liberties, or any part of them, to be revoked or diminished, it shall be duty of the barons to declare such null and void and we will at no time make use of it (ie, it will be unenforceable).” This provision articulates the doctrine of NULLIFICATION.

9). The Declaration of Independence (opening paragraph)

10). The Tenth Amendment

11). The Declaration of Independence (second paragraph)

12). “The Crisis” by Thomas Paine. Many are convinced that if it weren’t for the publications by Thomas Paine and the fiery speeches by Patrick Henry, the colonists may never have been motivated or inspired to fight for their independence. This particular passage from “The Crisis” has special meaning and significance. The colonists who enlisted to fight in the Revolutionary War were faced with dire circumstances – they were not receiving any compensation, their clothes were ragged and their shoes/boots were inadequate to protect them from the cold northern winters. How was General George Washington able to convince them to “hang in there” and continue to fight for the cause? He would gather his men around fires, pray with them, and read to them this passage from “The Crisis.” He felt it was the most powerful explanation for the reason to fight for independence. It was powerful enough, indeed, to keep the men loyal to the cause. Hearing the words written by Thomas Paine and being read by General Washington, they genuinely believed that their cause was right and just.

13). Ninth Amendment

14). The Declaration of Independence (final sentence of the second paragraph)

15). The Federalist Papers No. 78 (written by Alexander Hamilton). This is another very important essay yet one that the Supreme Court has conveniently chosen to ignore. Look what Hamilton writes about the judicial branch: “The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”   In other words, Hamilton is saying that the judicial branch is the least powerful of the three branches and has, at its only authority, the power to issue “opinions” to the other branches. The other branches have the discretion to either abide by those opinions or to ignore them and rely on an interpretation that they find more intellectually reliable.

16). From the famous speech (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”) given by Patrick Henry to the House of Burgesses (Virginia Convention) at the old St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775. Patrick Henry delivered this speech less than a month before the beginning of the Revolutionary War. This speech and the reason he gave it are extremely important in explaining why the colonies decided to declare their independence and to fight to secure it.

Patrick Henry had heard of the Intolerable Acts imposed on the colonists in Boston and in Massachusetts in general. He heard that the colonial legislature had been abolished and that British General Gage was installed as the Royal Governor and imposed martial law. He understood that what was happening in Boston would not be confined to Boston and that British forces would be stationed eventually in all the colonies to keep them subjugated and prevent them from rebelling against the Crown. He knew that British forces were not being sent to the colonies for their protection but rather to enforce British colonial rule. And so, on that night in March, he introduced several resolutions essentially calling on Virginia to prepare for war, or at least, to prepare to counter the British forces. He wanted each county in Virginia to call up a militia and to have its men to be prepared and trained. The speech he delivered was in support of those resolutions. Read the words of the entire speech and it will all make sense….. “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?” He explains in the previous paragraph how the colonists have done everything possible to have a dialogue with the King and have implored him to intercede on their behalf with Parliament in order that their rights as Englishmen be respected, but to no avail. He ends with the words “The war is actually begun …. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

And sure enough, the war came. On the night of April 18, 1775, hundreds of British troops marched from Boston to nearby Concord in order to seize a colonial arms cache. This is the story of Paul Revere and others who set out to alert the townsfolk that “The British are Coming!” In the early morning hours of April 19, approximately 700 redcoats arrived in Lexington and came upon 77 militiamen gathered on the town green. A shot rang out (“The shot heard round the world”) and the first shots of the American Revolution were fired.

The war came NOT because of the taxes imposed on the colonies, not because of the protests “No Taxation Without Representation,” but rather because the King of England once again (and in violation of the English Bill of Rights) was confiscating the firearms of its subjects. The colonists fought back because having their guns and ammunition confiscated was the ultimate act of a tyrant, one intent on subjugation and domination.

17). The English Bill of Rights of 1689. After a long history of abuses against the subjects of Great Britain (including the illegal confiscation of arms from political opponents, the illegal imprisonment of political opponents, the illegal confiscation of property, etc), the DUTY to keep and bear arms (under the various Militia laws) officially became recognized as a RIGHT to keep and bear arms for self-defense and self-protection.

18). Fourth Amendment (privacy)

19). Third Amendment

20). From the Supreme Court opinion in Everson v. Board of Education (1943), written by Justice Hugo Black, a former member of the KKK.

21). The Declaration of Independence (last sentence of the last paragraph)

22). Sixth Amendment

23). The Federalist Papers No. 78 (written by Alexander Hamilton).

24). The Preamble to the Bill of Rights. The words and sentiments of this Preamble cannot be overstated. Read its words. Essentially what it is saying is that the US Constitution, by its very language and provisions creates a federal government (a common government) that is limited to specific objects. The government was intentionally given limited powers in order that the States could exist in their independent form, exercising their independent sovereign powers, but yet being regulated to the point that they can co-exist without any discrimination or preferential treatment. HOWEVER, should that government forget this, the first ten amendments have been further added by the States in order to REMIND and REINFORCE its limited nature and to ASSERT in clear terms that as to the objects addressed in the amendments, the federal government will not legislate in any way to burden, violate, or deny said rights.

25). Fifth Amendment

26). Speech (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”) given by Patrick Henry

27). From the speech given on the floor of Virginia’s ratifying convention in 1788 by an aging Patrick Henry. Henry was an Anti-Federalist who believed the US Constitution signed in Philadelphia on Sept. 17, 1787 would tend to concentrate too much power in the federal government, at the expense of state sovereignty and ultimately at the expense of the very liberty that they had just fought a revolution over. Henry also criticized the Constitution for not containing a Bill of Rights. He promised that he would do everything in his power to convince the VA Ratifying Convention not to ratify/ adopt it.

28). Seventh Amendment

29). Speech (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”) given by Patrick Henry

30). The Gettysburg Address

 

- 00000

A Life Worth Remembering is a Life Lived with Love, Kindness, and Selflessness

Philip Mathews - family pic

(Philip, on the left, with his family)

by Diane Rufino, October 30, 2019

Today I had a conversation with two wonderful ladies about the Bible and about the pervasive evil that seems to be growing in country and all around the world. Does God have a role in this growing evil? In the suffering that seemingly good people endure?

I told them that I see things in a simple way –  the eternal struggle between Good and Evil, between Right and Wrong, between God and Satan. Each side, like the two sides of our judicial system or the two sides of our political system, constantly fight for our soul. And at the center is this thing called Free Will. Both sides tug at us – one side coming from a place of love and wisdom, and the other offering unbridled freedom, pleasure, and non-accountability – but ultimately we each make the decision as to which side we want to listen to.

One of the ladies asked if I think those who side with freedom and pleasure have any regrets in their life choices? I told her I didn’t know but that the people I mostly associate with are believers and who do their best to live according to what the Bible teaches and I know they are at peace and are happy. They are selfless and compassionate and put God and family first. Helping others makes them happy.

With that conservation in mind, I went to my computer to do some reading and found a touching tribute article to a young man, Philip Mathews, who passed away unexpectedly and way, way too soon.

Philip Mathews (2000-2019) was a young man born here in the United States into a large family of Indian immigrants who died unexpectedly last week at the young age of 19. The first thing most would notice about Philip is that he was born with life-altering facial deformities. In addition to the apparent differences, he was born with holes in his heart and without a corpus callosum, the band of nerve fibers that connects the brain’s two hemispheres. He endured 23 surgeries during his brief lifetime. Yet anyone who met him would never know the trials and health scares that he faced. Instead, they would be intoxicated by his abundant personality, his infectious smile, and his ambition to live his life to the fullest.

As Mark Alexander of the PATRIOT POST wrote: “Although Philip was born with severe facial deformities, within a moment of entering a conversation with him, those physical differences faded quickly into the shadow of his incredible spirit, his love for life, for other people, and for our nation. Like many Indian and Asian immigrant families who respect the greatness of America, Philip was imbued with enormous appreciation for our country. He also loved President Donald Trump, and he was, in his own way, devoted to making America great again. Philip devoted most of his energy to an organization his parents, Santhosh and Susan, founded 10 years ago — Love Without Reason. Its primary purpose was and remains to assist other young people around the world with severe facial disfigurations by providing free corrective surgery. The organization has since provided hundreds of such surgeries and hundreds more are planned.”

Alexander didn’t remember Philip for his limitations and his ability to live with his deformities, but rather for his glorious spirit and for all that he accomplished and all that he dedicated his life to. And many others remember Philip the same way.

Philip was a believer and an adherent to the Bible’s teachings. His life was a testament to his faith, a testament to his service to others, and apparently, it had a profound effect on a great many people.

Here is a touching testament to this young man’s life, given without hesitation and wholeheartedly by Mr. Brian Beckley, Philip’s college counselor. Brian was very close to him and in fact, he spoke at his remembrance service. Here is what Mr. Beckley wrote:

My reflections on Philip Mathews:

“I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” (2 John 1:12)

As I contemplate the loss of Philip, my friend and former student, I have both tears in my eyes and a smile on my face. On one hand, my heart is completely broken. I can’t help but feel sad — no, devastated — that someone so young and so good is no longer with us on Earth. Like all of us who have experienced the loss of a loved one, we are left to process the obvious questions like, “Why?” and, “How could this happen?” The initial shock and grief of this news hits hard, and a certain sense of unresolved finality creeps into my thoughts. The news of Philip’s passing simply hurts.

I’ve built my professional career in education around helping young people prepare for their future. I suppose deep down, my personal motivation as an educator is to do my part to inspire young people to realize their full potential and talents, and to encourage them to become good and responsible stewards of those gifts. This is where my smile starts to broaden. In the case of Philip Mathews, he was the “teacher,” and I often found myself listening and learning from him during our conversations. Philip was fearless. He was confident. Most importantly, I could tell from the moment I met him that Philip’s heart was pure and gracious.

Philip lived his life unapologetically. This is one of the big lessons I learned from him. Kind, respectful, and ever-mindful of the feelings of others, he was well-respected by his peers. However, he did have a “spunky” side to him. I distinctly remember during the 2016 presidential election cycle, Philip wore a hat every day that read, “Trump.” Philip was a huge supporter of President Trump, and I know he received some criticism for wearing his hat.

During one meeting together I asked Philip, “Why do you wear your Trump hat knowing that you are going to catch grief from some people?” I was not prepared for the profound answer that was about to come my way. Philip stated, “Mr. Beckley, the hat symbolizes much more than just one person. You see, I can never support a candidate or platform that would support the act of abortion. In some people’s eyes, I should not have been born. Thankfully, my mom and dad thought otherwise!”

It was during this meeting that I learned of Philip’s story and his family’s organization, Love Without Reason. Philip later told me that his two biggest heroes in life were his mom and dad because their faith in God allowed him to have a chance at life, and the example they set for him encouraged him to look past his disabilities and focus on helping others around the world to feel loved and valued.

At the very core of Love Without Reason is the idea that every child matters and that every child should feel loved. And that is exactly how Philip lived his life. He lived his life with great purpose and meaning, never feeling sorry for himself, and never being afraid to express his love and faith.

Although I could recount many stories and conversations Philip and I shared, I will just say that working with him reminded me of how precious life truly is and how great our God is. Philip’s life is living testimony to this. He encouraged me to be more confident in expressing my faith and my beliefs, and also to be more mindful of my own individual responsibilities as a father, husband, son, friend, and educator. As a spokesperson for Love Without Reason, Philip has traveled around the world sharing his testimonial and providing affirmation to young people that they are indeed loved, which is something God promises to each of us, unconditionally.

Although my sadness will not go away anytime soon, I take comfort in knowing that Philip’s life was not cut short of anything. Philip has made a permanent imprint on the lives of countless individuals, and his life should always be celebrated as living proof that love IS the reason why we were created, and that we can all make a difference in our communities by simply respecting and valuing our own unique gifts and talents.

Thank you, Philip!

In the end, I hope people choose to read the Bible, to learn its lessons, and to understand God’s purpose for us, especially here on Earth. Our Free Will must be guided by good and right. It must be guided by what is good and right for a loving community and not what is good for self. No one remembers with profound respect and love a person who rejoices over killing her unborn or who protests in DC to demand we recognize 20 different genders or who claims to be a transgender but instead looks like a freak or who goes to court to deny 90% of the population their right to exercise their religion in public. A person is remembered for the selfless acts of kindness and for the way he or she made others feel loved and wanted.

Enjoy your day, love your family, crack open your Bible, and be good and honorable. Trust me, you send that message and others will pay it forward.
Reference:

Mark Alexander, “Not the Column I Wanted to Write – A Young Patriot Departed,” Patriot Post, October 30, 2019. Referenced at: https://patriotpost.us/alexander/66454-not-the-column-i-wanted-to-write-dot-dot-dot-a-young-patriot-departed-2019-10-30

****   PLEASE go to the PATRIOT POST, read its fantastic articles, read Mark Alexander’s column, and sign-up to receive notifications.

The Impeachment Scheme – It’s not Going to Work

IMPEACHMENT - Pelosi (GOPUSA)

(Photo Courtesy of GOPUSA)

by Diane Rufino, October 31, 2019

Now that Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry, they’ll need to convince 20 Republicans in the Senate to vote to convict and remove him from power. We all know that the Senate will never remove him. And Democrats know that as well.

So what is the Democrats’ real goal? What is their end game?

Pelosi, Schiff, Shumer, D’Nang Dick Blumenthal, and all the other unhinged Democrats understand that the most important number when it comes to removing Trump from power isn’t the 67 votes in the Senate needed to convict. It’s his APPROVAL RATING. They have chosen this particular point in time to launch an Impeachment Inquiry because of the upcoming 2020 presidential election. They are hoping to capitalize on a tanking approval rating (as a result of the inquiry) to affect the election. They are hoping to impugn Trump’s reputation as they did to Nixon in the Watergate investigation (leading to his resignation in August 1974) and as Republicans did to President Clinton in the late 1990’s in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

But here is the difference between the Clinton impeachment investigation and the Trump impeachment investigation. Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing to warrant such an investigation. Remember the impeachment standard – “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment was reserved for those actions of a President that are so objectionable, so touching on his character and fitness for office as to convince members of BOTH PARTIES that the best thing for the country is to remove him from office. It is not a mere political tool – to be used by one political party to effect a political coup-d’état and remove a president they hate from office. Yet that is what we are seeing from the rabid Democrats from the very minute that Donald Trump took that historic walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol Building to take the oath of office in 2017.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, committed actual crimes – 11 felonies to be exact. That was the conclusion of the (Ken) Starr Report which was issued in 1998 to the House Judiciary Committee. The Report cited 11 possible grounds (felonies) for impeachment – that can be lumped into four general categories: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power. All of these felonies were linked to Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. These felonies were:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones’s attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (A) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (B) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President’s purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship (C) Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (D) the President used Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (E) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case. (Quid-pro-quo for Lewinsky’s silence)

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President’s false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (iA lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (B) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (C) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (D) invoking Executive Privilege; (E) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (F) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
[Reference: Wikipedia, “The Starr Report”]

Trump has been the victim of a fabricated plot to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election (the “Russian Collusion” scandal), which will backfire on Democrats and on Obama and his FBI and DOJ officials, has been the victim of a phone call scandal that Rep. Adam Schifty Schiff has inappropriately misrepresented to the House Judiciary Committee and to the American people, has been the victim of a secret Democratic plot to conduct an Impeachment Inquiry, and has been effectively under investigation and been the target of aggressive smear campaigns from the minute he took office, effectively hampering every step he undertakes as president of the United States.

The Democrats are the ENEMY and not President Trump. The only individuals who should suffer in their approval ratings are Democrats. In a world that should ultimately be rewarded for good and not evil, and in a world that we hope should even out as karma would have it, we should see Democrats losing popularity in their districts and then losing seats in Congress in November 2020. Let’s hope that as Democrats continue their witch hunt and their political coup d’état, President Trump’s approval rating will continue to rise !!

 

Bi-Sexual Wake County English Teacher Pushes Diversity and Privilege in her Classroom by Forcing Students to Disclose Private and Sensitive Information About Themselves and Others in Their Lives

 

by Diane Rufino, October 21, 2019

On their second day at school at Heritage High School in Wake County, students in Ms. Wilson’s 10th grade English class were handed a worksheet titled “Diversity Inventory,” and told to complete it. That worksheet asked each student such questions as: who their friends and doctors are, who their teachers were, who are the members of their family, and who their neighbors are. These questions may seem a bit intrusive, but so far, they don’t raise any red flags. But then the worksheet asks the student to answer the following questions about each of those individuals: their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and socio-economic status.

Why does an English teacher need to pry into her students’ lives and why does she need this information? And even more troubling, did she plan to force each student to share that private information with other students?

Apparently, according to the teacher, it was a checklist to help this teacher literally map out how to force more social justice ‘diversity’ lessons (ie, indoctrination) into her students’ lives. As if that isn’t highly offensive enough, the questionnaire worksheet has no nexus to her teaching of English. It has no relevance and should have no relevance. How does it impact her OBLIGATION to teach students about English literature, plots, and themes.

Needless to say, some students were offended and confused by the assignment. When some kids showed hesitation about answering, Ms. Wilson responded: “Hey, it’s OK because I used to be a Catholic and now I’m an atheist and I’m bi-sexual.”

When has it become acceptable for a teacher to share the details of her sex life?   And what possible relevance is it from an English teacher in an English class?

One parent, Dina Bartus, contacted the school’s principal to demand that her son be removed from the class. The principal did not respond, so she emailed him a second time. Only then did she hear back from him. As she explained: “It’s hard enough going to high school without having your teacher call you out and lump you into a category — and not a category like ‘do you like football or baseball?’ A category of, ‘who do you want to have sex with?’ She told the principal that the teachers’ worksheet, and the questions it asked, was it was unacceptable.

On Facebook, Bartus posted her disgust: “Now it gets better…. not only does she ask these questions, but she asks them stand under posters around the room representing the categories of questions she asks. For example: What makes you the most privileged? Needless to say there was an email sent. And it is only the second damn day of school.”

Luckily, and to the principal’s credit, as soon as Mrs. Bartus complained, he immediately reviewed the assignment and directed the teacher to discontinue it. The Wake County School System followed up by issuing a statement, which read: “While we value efforts to build a classroom community that is inclusive and respectful of all students and backgrounds, the Wake County Public School System also respects and values student privacy and their right to engage in discussion about personal identity when they are comfortable to do so.”

The response was dead on.

For those who believe the public school system has become the vehicle not of true education but of indoctrination by government and of social change, consider this reality. Wake County Public Schools created the Office of Equity Affairs (OEA) a few years ago to help guide the mission of Wake County’s public schools. A presentation by the OEA (accessible here: https://www.scribd.com/document/415005224/2019-06-05-NCSBE-06052019-WCPSS-OEA-Overview-v2) made clear that educators “will be the instruments for the infusion of raced-based and social justice training into schools and classrooms.” The presentation further states, and clearly so, that “Educators will work to socialize intelligence and effort among all students in every school, every classroom, every day…. Leaders will model and advance courageous conversations about special education status, family income, and race, and how these attributes shape teaching and learning experiences in schools and classrooms.”

Even more offensively, Wake County has promoted “professional development” training modules, which have been prepared by and are available on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website – under “Social Justice Standards.” The OEA has actively promoted the use of these “standards” in the classroom, directly frustrating parents’ legitimate expectations of teachers and of rightful expectations related to the rightful role of the public school (to educate and not to indoctrinate).

 

****  The clarifier “Bi-Sexual” was included in the title not to indicate any discrimination or mal intent against such individuals but only to suggest that someone who benefits so greatly from a very progressive social agenda (as the left and as the Southern Poverty Law Center pushes) may have had a reason for pushing the “Diversity Inventory” assignment and pushing a social agenda in her classroom – a classroom historically devoted to reading, analyzing, and appreciating outstanding works of English literature, studying plots and characters, looking for themes, tying the work into the time period, etc and NOT devoted to social change and government indoctrination.

Reference:  Thanks to Lady Liberty (A.P. Dillon) for addressing the Office of Equity Affairs (OEA) in her article “Diversity Inventory Worksheet Given to Heritage High Students Yanked After Parents’ Pushback,” August 29, 2019.   Referenced at: https://ladyliberty1885.com/2019/08/29/diversity-inventory-worksheet-given-to-heritage-high-students-yanked-after-parents-push-back/

SUPREME COURT WATCH: The Supreme Court Hears its Second Challenge to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Does it Protect Transgenders?)

SUPREME COURT - building (Newsmax)

by Diane Rufino, October 10, 2019

The Supreme Court just began its 2019-2020 term on Monday, October 7. The following day, on Oct. 8, the justices heard oral arguments in two potential landmark cases, both challenges to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda) and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the first case, the plaintiff asks the Supreme Court to include sexual orientation (LBGT) within the meaning of “sex” in Title VII for protection against discrimination. Bostock is a gay man. In the second case, which is the focus of this article, the plaintiff asks the Court to include transgender individuals for protection within the meaning of “sex” in Title VII.

The questions, of course, will be whether the provision was written to include such individuals and if not, whether or not the federal court has the proper authority to enlarge the meaning of Title VII to include them going forward.

The facts of the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC case are as follows: The plaintiff (the challenger), Aimee Stephens, considered herself a transgender woman for most of her adult life but presented herself as a male, which he said caused him constant emotional stress. In 2013, he decided to come out to family and friends, and arranged to undergo reassignment surgery within the next year, and began to implement lifestyle changes consistent with his ultimate transition. At that time, he had been an employee of R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes for six years and had a excellent work record. He wrote to his supervisor, explaining that he was taking a vacation and explaining his plans to transition to a female. He also notified the supervisor that when he returned to work, he would be wearing attire appropriate for a female employee. Note, when he returned, he would still be a biological male. He would not have had the surgery by that point. Two weeks later, Stephens was notified by mail that he had been terminated by the funeral home’s owner Thomas Rost. Stephens then filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), believing he was discriminated against on account of him being a transgender. He alleged that the provision in Title VII which protects a person from discrimination on account of ‘sex’ [“It shall be unlawful to discharge an individual because of that person’s sex…” (paraphrasing)] includes transgender individuals.

Title VII reads:

(a) Employer Practices. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

This case, therefore, will determine (or may determine) whether discrimination on the basis of gender identity is covered by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC surprisingly agreed with Stephens’ position and took the case against the funeral home to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2016, the court found for the funeral home on two bases: (1) First, it held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act neither encompassed transgender persons nor gender identity individuals (neither were considered protected classes, or even considered at all), and (2) Second, it held because Rost was a devout Christian who does not accept that one can change one’s gender and who ran the funeral home under his religion, he was protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit, and in March 2018, it reversed the decision, ruling that Title’s VII “discrimination by sex” does include transgender persons. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) took the funeral home’s case and appealed to the Supreme Court for review. The Court accepted the case.

MY OPINION is that the Supreme Court should NOT decide this case. The Court should respect the language and intent of the legislature (Congress) when it passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Sexual orientation and gender identity were not included in the provision; those categories of individuals were not legislatively given protected status in the Act. It is NOT the role of the federal courts (or any court system) to make law from the bench or to enlarge the meaning of laws from the bench. That would be judicial activism. The proper recourse is for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that transgenders (gender identity individuals) and sexual orientation individuals present a new situation with respect to discrimination and then leave it to Congress to either amend Title VII to include them or to decline to include them as protected classes. But the rightful branch to address this issue is Congress, and the Supreme Court must respect that and not usurp that responsibility by reinterpreting the law and enlarging its meaning judicially.

NC VALUES founder, president, and spokeswoman, Tami Fitzgerald was at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Oct. 8 for the oral arguments. She delivered a speech on the steps of the imposing building, urging her view and the view of NC Values regarding Title VII. The transcript of her remarks is provided below. Her remarks are well worth the read:

“We are here today to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to restore sanity and the rule of law. Americans should be able to rely on what the law says. Yet, in these three cases, the lower courts have effectively redefined the word “sex” in federal law to include “gender identity,” creating unfair situations for women and girls, and punishing businesses like Harris Funeral Homes for relying on what the law says. Redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” creates chaos and is unfair to women and girls.

Title VII was enacted to ensure that men and women have equal employment opportunities. It was not designed to be a radical social engineering project that shoehorns sexual liberties into federal law. Yet some lower courts, including the Sixth and Second Circuits, jump from stereotypical ideas about the roles of men and women to conclusions that render heterosexuality—and even the very idea of biological sex—illicit stereotypes.

The cases at issue here, have ripped the stereotyping terminology from the pages of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and commandeered it for purposes far removed from Title VII’s objectives. The result is a sweeping redefinition of biological reality that injects sexual orientation and/or gender identity into the meaning of the word “sex.”

Title VII’s relevant protected characteristic is “sex,” which in 1964 and still today means biological sex. Plaintiffs now demand protection for sexual orientation (Zarda, Bostock) and gender identity (Harris)—which are both radically different categories.

The Sixth Circuit substitutes gender identity for sex in Title VII, rewriting the statutory text and redefining the reality of plaintiff’s sex.

Gender identity theory cements stereotypes in stone rather than eradicating them from the law. It reduces what it means to be male or female to a collection of stereotypes that many people—especially women—have spent many years trying to overcome and that many people reject.

The word “sex” in Title VII is an objective term determined by reproductive anatomy. Sexual orientation is subjectively determined by individual’s preference in sexual partners. Gender identity is subjectively determined by a person’s internal sense of being male or female. These subjective categories represent a radical departure from the text of Title VII and the underpinnings of previous case law.

The Sixth Circuit was wrong when it precluded an interpretation of Title VII that reads “sex” to mean only individuals’ chromosomally driven physiology and reproductive function. That is precisely the definition of “sex” in Title VII and many other laws. The circuit courts attempt to redefine reality and infuse the federal law with meanings that are simply not there.

Laws cannot be enforced or rightly interpreted if word definitions can be shifted at will to mean whatever someone wants them to mean.

Blurring the binary concept of male and female detracts from the fundamental purpose of both Title VII and Price Waterhouse—to ensure that male and female employees have equal employment opportunities.

Male and female are both human beings, but they are not interchangeable in every respect. When the line is blurred, there is no assurance that women will have equal opportunities vis-à-vis men.

Redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” creates unfair situations for women and girls.

Title VII and other civil rights laws are in place to protect equal opportunities for women; changing “sex” to mean gender identity undermines nearly 50 years of advances for women.

(1)  It undermines equal opportunities for women. Men identifying as female will take women’s places on athletics teams and on the award podium. Just this fall, the North Carolina High School Athletic Association changed its rules regarding participation, so that transgender athletes can now compete according to their gender identity, rather than their biological sex. The Court’s decision in these cases will impact whether female athletes in North Carolina have to continue under this oppressive rule or can return to a fair playing field, where biology determines which team on which boys can compete—not feelings.

(2)  It jeopardizes bodily privacy rights of women by forcing organizations to open women’s shelters, locker rooms, restrooms, and showers to men who say they are women. For example, the Obama Justice Department attempted to force schools and government buildings in North Carolina to allow men who say they are women into women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. Women should be able to expect privacy and safety in such facilities.

Redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” causes big problems.

(1) It puts employers in unfair situations. Employers must treat men who believe themselves to be women as if they are women, unless those employees don’t “meet the expectations” of what women “typically” look like. This is an impossible standard and forces employers to engage in the very stereotypes the law is supposed to condemn.

(2) It sacrifices freedom of conscience.

(3) It forces doctors to participate in—or employers to pay for—providing hormone blockers or surgical efforts to alter sex in violation of religious beliefs.

(4) It endangers freedom of speech.

(5) It forces business owners, employees, teachers and others to speak in violation of their conscience by compelling them to use pronouns and other sex‐specific terms according to identity rather than biology. For example, in Charlotte and Raleigh , North Carolina, teachers and guidance counselors have been told they must use gender neutral terms such as “students” rather than “he” or “she” and that they must use preferred pronouns for students who identify as the sex other than their biological sex.

So much is riding on the Court’s decision in these cases. This decision will impact public schools, employers, business owners, employees, and churches. We implore the Justices not to re-define what it means to be a woman and a man, but rather to follow the law, common sense, and the order of Creation.”

TAMI FITZGERALD - head shot (red suit)   Tami Fitzgerald

NC VALUES fights tirelessly for North Carolina families and for our North Carolina conservative values, and we owe Tami Fitzgerald and her organization a debt of gratitude. She is always on the front line. If you are looking for a worthwhile and honorable organization to donate to, please consider to donating to NC Values.

 

Reference: https://www.ncvalues.org/tami_fitzgerald_harris_funeral_homes_speech?utm_campaign=20191010_harris_followup&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ncvalues

The Road to Impeachment: Trump Calls Pelosi’s Bluff

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY - Trump v. Pelosi (Gage Skidmore, US Coast Guard)

(Photo Courtesy of Gage Skidmore, US Coast Guard)

The Mueller Report concluded that there were no grounds to indict President Trump. There were no grounds related to the so-called Russian Collusion allegation or any other allegation that was included in the Special Counsel’s investigation. So what to do? What to do??

The Democrats needed another avenue to frustrate the President and to find a potential “high crime or misdemeanor” to try to impeach him. And that’s where the phone conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president came in. Democrats expected this to have great potential to blow out of proportion, as they like to do, but what they didn’t expect was for Trump to release the unredacted transcript of that conversation.

The transcript showed that Trump never engaged in any incriminating conservation and breached no unlawful or inappropriate topic with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. [Refer to this interview with Legal Analyst and best-selling author, Gregg Jarrett where he explains the Joe Biden and Hunter Biden situation regarding the Ukraine. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1180521871223246848/video/1 ]

All one needs to know about that conservation is this: President Trump has every right and full authority to ask a foreign government if there has been any corruption or illegality by officials of the United States. In the conversation, that is all Trump refers to. He did not phrase the question in terms of “quid-pro-quo” action, meaning that if the Ukrainians didn’t comply, the United States would retaliate in some way, nor did he promise something in return if the Ukraine provided evidence. That would be government coercion. Quid-pro-quo action is what Vice President Biden engaged in during the Obama years with the Ukraine.

Despite the unredacted transcript, House Democrats have had the audacity to accuse the White House of providing a transcript that doesn’t honestly reflect what the national leaders talked about. As always, they think they know better (yet at every step, they have not).

On Tuesday, September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House would launch a formal impeachment INQUIRY into President Trump. Adding to our absolute frustration with Congressional Democrats, Pelosi announced last week that the House would yet again be neglecting its actual constitutional obligation to legislate and take care of the country’s problems in order to continue to investigate President Trump. She said a number of committees have been tasked with gathering “facts” and “evidence” in order to build a case. What she didn’t announce was a VOTE on impeachment. In other words…. Democrats intend to engage in yet another fishing expedition. We can interpret this as affirming that there still is no grounds for impeachment, but maybe, if the House investigates enough, if enough people lie and leak privileged information that can be misconstrued, if every aspect of Trump’s life is examined under a microscope, there may ultimately be grounds to move forward on articles of impeachment.

How this will play out is just beginning to unfold. Here were the possibilities:

(i)  The House could find nothing and close the investigation.

(ii)  The House could investigate in perpetuity effectively tying up the legislative calendar for the remainder of the year.

(iii)  The House could move forward and hold a vote to impeach the president.

(iv)  The White House could refuse to comply to the subpoenas and other requests for information UNTIL Nancy Pelosi first holds a vote on impeachment.

Trump decided to go with option #4.

The Trump Administration is not easily tricked, it knows the evil games that Democrats play, and it has no intention of complying with their fishing expedition. The White House is taking the position that it does not have to treat the House subpoenas or other requests for information as having the force or weight of impeachment law. In other words, he cannot be forced to comply. And so, yesterday afternoon, the White House sent a letter to House Speaker Pelosi calling her bluff on impeachment. The letter made it clear that it will refuse to comply with witness or document requests until a full House VOTE is taken and impeachment is officially underway, thwarting their witch hunt – the tactic used by Democrats since Trump announced he was running for the presidency. Pelosi, on the other hand, believes she does not need a vote to begin the process, as she has stated. The reality is that she is using the “inquiry” approach to avoid an actual vote in order to protect approximately a dozen Democratic House members who believe they will lose reelection if they vote to impeach President Trump.

As we are all too well aware, the effort to impeach President Trump began even before he was inaugurated on January 20. 2017. It began, on one front, with Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and others attempting to tie the president’s business ventures to a violation of existing law and elevating that violation to a “high crime or misdemeanor” under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution, at the same time the FBI’s “insurance policy” was being advanced. In fact, the first articles of impeachment were drafted in 2017, just months after President Trump took office. And Democrats have been beating that tired drum ever since. Their methods are just becoming more desperate and insane.

Impeachment in the United States, as we all know, is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, the Constitution gives the powers of impeachment and conviction to Congress: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Each house of Congress plays a part.

The House of Representatives is the chamber tasked with bringing articles of impeachment against the president (or other official). Article I, Section 2, clause 5 reads: “The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” A president is “impeached” by the House by a simple majority vote (51%), but he still remains in office.

The next step is removal, which is at the sole discretion of the Senate. Article I, Section 3, clauses 6 provides: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

In short, impeachment is a political process controlled by Congress, and is a tool to punish wrongdoing as defined by the constitution, not to settle policy disputes. Political hatred is not included in “high crimes and misdemeanors” and if Democrats decide to go that route, God help our country moving forward. Using this standard, political parties would be able to execute an internal government coup whenever their hatred level rises high enough.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains why Pelosi’s current impeachment gamble, which has given the Trump campaign an extra $15 million in just a few days, isn’t impeachment at all:

“The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what committee chairmen Nadler issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.

The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.”

Taking the position that the White House has taken (calling Pelosi’s bluff on impeachment) will likely have the following effects:

1).  Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats will challenge the Trump Administration in court to compel them to comply with the impeachment inquiry (Good luck Democrats once it gets to the Supreme Court!!), and

2).  The first stage of the impeachment process will drag out over a longer period of time (making it more likely that Trump will be re-elected and Democrats will lose seats in Congress).

Regarding the first, this will cause our government to enter largely untested legal waters. Speaker Pelosi will attempt to use the legal process to threaten Administration officials to comply with her requests or risk their own legal problems, and she will threaten to add “Non-Compliance” or “Obstruction” along with her list of impeachment charges against President Trump. As hinted above, conservatives should be consoled should any constitutional questions need to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Regarding the second, House Pelosi and Democratic Leadership have desperately tried to avoid entering into an impeachment fight because of Trump’s popularity and the public’s overall approval and support of his policy initiatives. They approve of the direction he is taking our country and they feel the positive effects of his policies. There are several House Democrats know it will be political suicide to try to impeach such a popular president.

At this initial phase of this impeachment battle, the extreme partisanship of House Democrats and their vitriolic rhetoric against the president would suggest that the House will likely proceed with filing articles of impeachment against Trump. They actually may be forced to do so by the position taken by the White House. Without compliance by the White House regarding subpoenas and requests for information, the House will have a hard time making an actual case for impeachment. The Ukrainian phone call is turning out to be another disaster for them. But, if Pelosi decides to call for a vote, if Democrats vote as a block, and if Democrats are not afraid to face their voters to explain their vote, impeachment will be successful. With a full membership of the House and having a majority, 218 Democratic “YES” votes will impeach President Trump.

What can we expect from the Senate after a House Vote?

If the House does happen to vote to impeach President Trump, the Senate would have no choice but to take up the issue of removal. Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted as such. The Senate rule on impeachment requires the Senate to receive the House managers of impeachment, provide the opportunity for the managers to reveal the articles of impeachment on the Senate floor, and begin the trial no later than one o’clock in the afternoon of the following day.

Normally, the Vice President of the United States, as President of the Senate, presides over Senate business, but in order to avoid a conflict of interest, the Constitution directs “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” In the case of President Trump being impeached, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts would preside over the trial, maintaining order and ensuring Senate rules are followed.

However, while Leader McConnell is correct that the Senate must consider the articles of impeachment, there are several different possibilities for how the Senate could deal with the impeachment of the president:

(1)  The Senate could begin the trial and in short order move to dismiss the articles of impeachment.

(2)  They could also entertain a motion to send the articles and the trial to a committee of the Senate.

(3)  They can dismiss some articles (if the House makes more than one accusation against the president) and hold a trial on the other articles.

(4)  They could also have a full blown trial on the Senate floor at which President Trump’s defense attorneys would be able to present and examine evidence, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to deliver opening and final arguments.

Once the trial takes place, the Senate would likely debate in executive (or closed) session followed by a vote in open session as to whether or not to convict Trump. In order for the president to be convicted of the accusations contained in the articles of impeachment, two-thirds of senators present and voting must vote “YES.” A conviction is required to remove the president from office. The Senate may then vote to bar the president from holding federal office again.

Impeachment is perhaps the most serious exercise that our representative government can undertake. The purpose is to remove an unfit president from continuing in office where his seriously flawed judgement and dishonest intuition will have the chance to prejudice the country. It recognizes the fundamental code in our country that no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. The cavalier manner in which Speaker Pelosi is beginning this process exposes the worst kind of partisan politics. She has been mentally, emotionally, and psychologically compromised by her hatred of President Trump. Her hatred and her absolute desire to rally the Democratic Party behind an effort to unseat the man that is doing to most to hurt her party has her hijacking the power of her office and her position for purposes not allowed by the Constitution, nor contemplated by it. Again, political hatred does not come under the purview of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the historic and constitutional threshold for impeachment. Presidents Nixon and Clinton faced an impeachment inquiry only after a vote by the House. Speaker Pelosi is buckling under the pressure of left-wing activists to impeach President Trump while violating the proper process to do so in order to protect Democratic members who may lose re-election if they vote on impeachment.

If you listen to the mainstream news or do a google search (which of course, will take you to a progressive/liberal site rather than any conservative ones), you will hear crazy talk like “Polls show more Americans are in favor of impeachment” and “More compelling evidence against President Trump.” None of these stories is true. The truth is that Democrats are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome which is causing them to ignore the Constitution, to ignore the will of the people at the ballot box in 2016, and to ignore proper codes of conduct and to persecute and harass the President every chance they get (or to manufacture a reason to do so).

I wish the Supreme Court would issue a “cease and desist” order to House Democrats, instructing them to stop harassing President Trump and ordering them BACK TO WORK !!

All the facts in this impeachment reveal a purely partisan attempt to overturn the will of the American people and to remove from office a man who won a historic victory at the ballot box. The victory was not simply to put him in office but it was a message rejecting Hillary Clinton and the Democratic pollical machine. The incessant investigations, allegations, and calls for impeachment are merely illegitimate attempts (ie, a coup) to overturn the election of President Trump in 2016.

But the American people are not without a role in the righteousness of the impeachment or the injustice of the impeachment. The American people have the opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box regarding their views of the impeachment. If the impeachment was clearly justified, the party responsible for bringing the articles of impeachment and for removing the dishonorable president will be rewarded with more seats in Congress. On the other hand, if a particular political party misused or abused its impeachment power, that party will suffer at election time. For example, after impeaching President Clinton, congressional Republicans faced backlash and lost seats in the subsequent election. The overwhelming majority of Americans had no idea of the actual legal basis for his impeachment (for he committed an actual crime by knowingly lying under oath as a defendant in a lawsuit) but just knew that he was a popular president who seemed to be impeached for his inability to keep his little willie in his pants.

It will be up to us, and those of us who appreciate Donald Trump and who are sickened by the actions of the Democratic Party, to push back against this evil myoptic political party and to make sure their numbers and their voice in government is minimized. We must make it abundantly clear that it is NOT acceptable to ignore one’s constitutional obligations and oath to office and instead to co-opt the powers of the federal government for the singular purpose of advancing the interests and power of a political party.

 

 

Reference:

“Oppose Impeachment,” Heritage Action. Referenced at: https://heritageaction.com/toolkit/oppose-impeachment?utm_source=heritageaction&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_10-05-2019&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRneFl6bGtaR1ptTW1ObCIsInQiOiJFYzNUM1wvODhGeHJ2N2NpeGFZaTFmVTRYWFFyUWhBQ0FGVjNkOFFtVDVweTFDa3ZQQm1hK25rS1wvcTZOWnVZU0RsM3o0SFM5K2VIeVI2bXRnYmtBR05yVGVFVktUR2NEQWVSdGx0NStcL3cyQjVrZ1J3cTlJdGZzWnBQTVwvSE1tR2YifQ%3D%3D

The Second Amendment and Red Flag Laws: Understand Your Rights and Learn the Truth

RED FLAG LAWS - I want YOU to prevent gun violence

by Diane Rufino, October 1, 2019

My professor at law school, Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX News Senior Legal Analyst, wrote an excellent article on Red Flag Laws.

Not only is this article spot on regarding the issues (unconstitutionality) of Red Flag laws, but it is a brilliant overview of our founding and of the original intent and understanding of our Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. The history included in Judge Napolitano’s article is a history that our children will never be exposed to in the public school system. Our government will never allow students to be taught that they have an inherent right to be armed against government should it turn despotic and tyrannical (which almost all governments, at some point, become).

St. George Tucker, one of our country’s most influential legal scholars and an expert on the US Constitution (as ratified), wrote the following in his View of the Constitution of the United States (1803) regarding the right to arms addressed in the Second Amendment:

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”

Tucker’s View of the Constitution was the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution after it had been ratified by the people of the several states and amended by the Bill of Rights. And his Blackstone’s Commentaries, With Notes of Reference to the Constitution (1803), from which the following excerpt originates, was the major treatise on American law in the early 19th century. Lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States would frequently cite to Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries more often than any other commentator until 1827.

The information in Judge Napolitano’s article is information that I did not learn in my years at Seton Hall Law School (which was recently renamed “Seton Hall School of Social Justice”). The reason is that the Second Amendment had not been interpreted and analyzed honestly by the Supreme Court when I was a student there. For all of our country’s history, the Second Amendment was assumed by ordinary citizens to include the individual right to self-defense while it was assumed by government to only include the right to firearms when men formed into a militia. This difference of viewpoints highlights exactly the difference between Free Individuals and Government. It highlights the difference between the views and intent of Free Individuals versus the views and intent of government. Individuals want their rights secure; and especially from the reaches of government (as the Bill of Rights was intended to ensure). They are protective and defensive of their rights. Government, on the other hand, wants to control the people and is ever so willing to re-interpret rights such that government can burden, define, and even take them away (such as when third parties make a complaint that a certain individual is a threat and should have his/her firearms confiscated).

When I was attending law school, the controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence was that the right protected in the Second Amendment was not an individual right but a collective right. In 1939, the Supreme Court decided a firearms case, United States v. Miller, in which it interpreted the Second Amendment as such. The right to keep and bear arms, as a result of the case, was understood to be a collective right; it gave rise to the “Militia Theory” of the Second Amendment. I graduated from Seton Hall when this case was still controlling jurisprudence. The year after I graduated, however, marked a profound shift in the view of the Second Amendment. George Bush ran for president on the view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, for self-defense and self-protection. That was also the view held by the NRA at the time, which was one of Bush’s biggest campaign backers. John Ashcroft, Bush’s Attorney General issued a letter in 2001 renouncing the “Militia Theory” of the Second Amendment and endorsed the “Individual Rights” view. The US Department of Justice would from that date forward “unequivocally” support the view that the amendment guaranteed and protected the “private ownership of firearms” (as the letter read). Immediately after the letter’s release, Ashcroft send a memorandum to all federal prosecutors officially informing them of the administration’s official position. [In other words, the Attorney General, as part of the Executive Branch, NULLIFIED the position of the Judicial Branch].

In November of 2001, we had the first federal ruling to apply the updated view of the Second Amendment – United States v. Emerson. A federal appeals court in Texas held that the earlier decisions interpreting the Second Amendment to apply only to state militias had been wrong. The case involved a man who had been brought up on charges of illegally possessing a firearm. Timothy Joe Emerson’s wife had previously accused him of threatening her, which led her to obtain a temporary restraining order against him. Under federal law, a person under such an order is prohibited from possessing firearms. Emerson, however, refused to give up his. He argued that under the Second Amendment, he should be able to keep his gun, his Beretta pistol, because the Constitution guaranteed him the right to have one for self-defense. The court agreed with him, under the Ashcroft DOJ view. The original meaning of the Second Amendment, the ruling articulated, was to guarantee individuals, and not just militias, the right to keep and bear arms. [The ruling went on to explain that persons with a history of violence could be legally barred from possessing guns. And using that logic, the court ordered Emerson to stand trial]. But the Emerson case marked a profound shit in Second Amendment jurisprudence. And then the 2008 landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller solidified that view in a brilliant and masterful opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I have written extensively about his in my article “Anatomy of a Supreme Court Case: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008),” which I posted on my blogsite on June 12, 2019. [https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/06/12/anatomy-of-a-supreme-court-case-district-of-columbia-v-heller-2008/].

Why are lawmakers talking about Red Flag Laws and other Gun Control Laws? Why are Democratic candidates like Beto O’Rourke talking about government confiscation of firearms? It’s because they have no clue what significance the Constitution has as a founding document, as a document to define and empower the federal government while at the same time, limiting it. It’s because they have no clue whatsoever why the Bill of Rights is so critical and what purpose those amendments serve in our so-called “free country.” It’s because they idolize leaders such as Hitler and Stalin more than they idolize visionaries such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Why are millennials, liberals, and progressives (ie, Democrats) so willing to fight for and support gun control laws, to support gun bans, and to support repeal of the Second Amendment? It’s because they don’t value liberty. They aren’t inclined to take the chances that come with a free society (which is the reality that bad people will do bad things, especially in our current era devoid of religion and morality and strong stable families) and they aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with being a member of a free society, which includes the support of policies that strengthen families, morality, self-sufficiency, honest education, proper gender roles, religious guidance, inclusion rather than “diversity” (which is actually code for division and identity politics), the rule of law, and the rights of victims over the rights of criminals, and which reward sacrifice and success, military service, and common sense. Healthy communities are the natural by-product of good and responsible law-making, where the most productive qualities and most productive conduct are encouraged and protected.

It is so true what they say….. People who do not know what their rights are, who don’t know why those rights are essential, and who don’t know how they are secured are the ones who are unfit to stand up for them. In a way, they are undeserving of the freedom that the United States offers. Being an American means you responsibly exercise your God-given and other liberty rights, you respect the identical rights for others, you conduct yourself in a way that reflects admirably on the United States, and you accept the duty of defending those rights, opposing government when it abuses its powers, and in general, ensuring that the country you inherited is at least the same (but hopefully better) than the one you will leave to future generations. That is the way you preserve our great American experiment and the way you preserve individual liberty.

It all starts with proper and honest education. Education should always favor the people and their rights and responsibilities, and not the supremacy of the federal government and its agenda. And that’s because the primary role of government, as explained in exquisite detail in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure and protect the rights of the individual. When it ceases to perform that primary role, then government as is should cease to exist and the people should “alter or abolish” it and institute another 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.”

So please read Judge Napolitano’s article below and share it. Please use it to help educate your children, grandchildren, etc. At least use it to begin a conservation, a debate, or to inspire them to learn more. We can take back our country and protect our rights, one child at a time. They are our future.

RED FLAG LAWS: THE DANGEROUS URGE TO DO SOMETHING, by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sept. 20, 2019 [https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/20/red-flag-the-dangerous-urge-to-do-something/ ]

When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread.

The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies. Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.

Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership, it doesn’t take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.

It is a matter of historical fact that the colonists won the war largely by superior firepower.

Six years after the war was over, delegates met in Philadelphia in secret and drafted what was to become the Constitution. The document, largely written in James Madison’s hand, was then submitted to Congress and to the states, which began the process of ratification.

By then, Americans had already formed two basic political parties. The Federalists wanted a muscular central government and the Anti-Federalists wanted a loose confederation of states. Yet the memory of a Parliament that behaved as if it could write any law, tax any event and impair any liberty, coupled with the fear that the new government here might drift toward tyranny, gave birth to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — the Bill of Rights.

The debate over the Bill of Rights was not about rights; that debate had been resolved in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence declared our basic human rights to be inalienable. The Bill of Rights debates were about whether the federal government needed restraints imposed upon it in the Constitution itself.

The Federalists thought the Bill of Rights was superfluous because they argued that no American government would knowingly restrict freedom. The Anti-Federalists thought constitutional restraints were vital to the preservation of personal liberty because no government can be trusted to preserve personal liberty.

Second among the personal liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights from impairment by the government was the right to self-defense. Thomas Jefferson called that the right to self-preservation.

Fast-forward to today, and we see the widespread and decidedly un-American reaction to the tragedies of El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Even though both mass murders were animated by hatred and planned by madness, because both were carried out using weapons that look like those issued by the military, Democrats have called for the outright confiscation of these weapons.

Where is the constitutional authority for that? In a word: nowhere.

The government’s job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce their access to madmen? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws?

These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet — because they feel they must do something — they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of “Red Flag” laws.

The concept of a “Red Flag” law — which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person MIGHT do — violates both the presumption of innocence and the Due Process requirement of proof of criminal behavior plus the opportunity to challenge that allegation before liberty can be infringed.

The presumption of innocence puts the burden for proving a case on the government. Because the case to be proven — might the gun owner be dangerous? — if proven, will result in the loss of a fundamental liberty, the presumption of innocence also mandates that the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Republican proposal, the “Red Flag” laws, lowers the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence — “a more likely than not” standard. That was done because it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event might happen. This is exactly why the “might happen” standard is unconstitutional and alien to our jurisprudence. It is simply not sufficient to protect our inalienable rights and the liberty rights we are entitled to, according to “the laws of nature and by Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence, first paragraph).

In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, that the right to keep and bear arms in the home is an individual pre-political right. Due process demands that this level of right — we are not talking about the privilege of a driving a car on a government street — can only be taken away after a jury conviction or a guilty plea to a felony.

The “might happen” standard of “Red Flag” laws violates this basic principle. The same Supreme Court case also reflects the Kentucky long gun lesson. The people are entitled to own and possess the same arms as the government; for the same reason as the colonists did — to fight off tyrants should they seize liberty or property.

If the government can impair Second Amendment-protected liberties on the basis of what a person might do, as opposed to what a person actually did do, to show that it is doing something in response to a public clamor, then no liberty in America is safe.

Which liberty will the government infringe upon next?

 

ANDREW NAPOLITANO - head shot

References:

Judge Andrew Napolitano, “Red Flag Laws – The Dangerous Urge to Do Something,” Tenth Amendment Center, September 20, 2019. Referenced at: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/20/red-flag-the-dangerous-urge-to-do-something/

Diane Rufino, “Anatomy of a Supreme Court Case: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008),” www.forloveofgodandcountry.com, June 12, 2019. Referenced at: https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/06/12/anatomy-of-a-supreme-court-case-district-of-columbia-v-heller-2008/