Democrats Try to Clear Path to Cheat at the Ballot Box in North Carolina

VOTER ID LAWS - by state

(This excellent photo comes from the Reclaimtheamericandream.org site)

by Diane Rufino, January 4, 2020

Check out the article posted on January 2 in the Carolina Journal about the ongoing status of our NC Voter ID law. [“NC Attorney General Won’t Push for Voter ID in 2020 Primary,” https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/n-c-attorney-general-wont-push-for-voter-id-in-2020-primary/%5D. In particular, the article addresses a federal district court ruling that has blocked our NC Voter ID law requiring a photo ID to vote from going into effect.

Check out the total b***sh** that is coming from the Democrats (Governor Roy Cooper, Attorney General Josh Stein, the NAACP, other progressive organizations, and liberal/deranged/progressive judges), all in a desperate and concerted effort to make sure they can cheat and scheme at the ballot box. After all, North Carolina is a battleground state and Democrats have their evil sights on her.

We all know that in order to have any chance at winning the state, Democrats must be able to cheat and scheme at the ballot. And they have been out in full force since the 2016 election, in full obstructionist mode, just as the Pelosis and Schiffs and Nadlers and Schumers and the other deranged Democrats in DC have been gunning for Trump from the second he took the oath of office. And we also know that in matters of law alone (that is, laws duly passed by the state legislature and even by the US Congress), Democrats can’t win. When they can’t achieve what they want through the election process and when they can’t get their way with legislation and policy, they go to the liberal courts. There, they know, they will get the social justice they seek. In other words, there they will be able to over-turn election results and strike down duly-enacted laws simply by claiming discrimination, by reminding the liberal/social justice-minded judges of North Carolina’s history of discrimination, by conjuring up some half-ass allegation that has no basis in our constitutional jurisprudence, or by going so far out on a limb with their charges that people immediately accuse them of insanity or GOP derangement syndrome. Until we straighten out the mess we have with our courts whereby judges put politics first and political party first instead of honest legal analysis (we see this especially in North Carolina and in places like California and Hawaii), we need to call these liberals, these liberal politicians, these liberal judges, and these liberal groups out for what they are – agents to help the Democratic Party gain and secure political power, at all possible cost. They are a disease, a cancer, that needs to be rooted out so that our state can be healthy and so that government can be accountable and can properly serve those for whom it was created – the People (as opposed to a Political Party).

For now, Democrats are happy and content knowing that the state court system is over-run with liberal/progressive judges. The state supreme court has six of the seven seats filled with Democrats. This leaves them free to concentrate on elections here in North Carolina. Republicans want elections that are fair and free from fraud, abuse, and tampering. About 10 years ago, the federal government conducted a study of the elections across the country and found an incredible amount of voter fraud and election fraud. The panel that was created to study it concluded with a report and advised every single state to adopt a voter ID law to secure their elections. Democrats reject the Republican position (of course) and they reject even the advice of the federal government. Neither position gives the Democratic Party the opportunity to engage in election and voter fraud to influence election results.

There seems to be a reason why the Democratic Party poured most of its resources into the races for NC Governor, NC Attorney General, NC Secretary of State, and the NC state Auditor… It’s because these four state leaders, these members of the NC Council of State are the ones which have influence over the NC Board of Elections. And guess what? Democrats won all four of these seats (Roy Cooper, Josh Stein, Elaine Marshall, and Beth Wood, respectively).

Notice the four glaring problems with the federal court ruling issued by US District Court Judge Loretta Biggs on December 31. First of all, the African-American judge (appointed by Obama) dwelled on North Carolina’s history of racial discrimination and then concluded that “racial motivation was a likely factor in the General Assembly’s crafting of the voter ID law.” It’s no secret that North Carolina was a slave state and has a history of racial discrimination, including Jim Crow laws and attempts to disenfranchise blacks at the ballot box. But that ended with Martin Luther King Jr’s protests and his black civil rights movement aimed at tearing down voter suppression laws. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the historic Voting Rights Act, making it legally impermissible to deny equality at the ballot box. In the years that followed, black participation in elections continued to increase and in certain historically discriminated areas, black participation was even greater than white participation. And then in 2008, a half-black man was elected to the highest office in the land – the White House, with support from both white and black voters. Black participation in elections was documented by the Supreme Court in 2008 and in 2013. Nevertheless, Judge Biggs had this to say about the NC Voter ID law in her ruling this past week: “A sordid history of racial discrimination and voter suppression stretching back to the time of slavery, through the era of Jim Crow, and, crucially, continuing up to the present day.”

The NC Voter ID law at issue was passed as SB 824 in 2018. This was the second attempt at implementing voter ID by North Carolina Republicans in recent years. Their previous attempt, in 2013, was ruled unconstitutional after a liberal federal appeals court (the 4th Circuit) found that it was intended to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.” While the 2018 law didn’t contain some of the so-called objectionable parts of the unconstitutional 2013 law, such as early voting restrictions that were unrelated to the ID issue, Judge Biggs wrote that the new 2018 law still appears to have been “impermissibly motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory intent.” Read clearly, her ruling drips of her personal opinion and her personal disgust over NC’s past history of racial discrimination. It is not grounded in any reality.

A cardinal rule of the SEPARATION OF POWERS doctrine regarding the judiciary is that the courts must NEVER substitute their judgement for that of the legislature. And that is exactly what disgraced judge Biggs did. Second, a recent (2013) landmark Supreme Court ruling struck down the “pre-clearance” requirement in the Voting Rights Act, thereby effectively saying that courts must not take any historic discrimination into its analysis in reviewing matters of voting (voting laws, maps, etc). It must not be assumed any longer that just because a state had discriminated in the past that it must be intending to continue to discriminate. [See Shelby v. Holder, 2013]. Third, the Supreme Court had already ruled on the exact type of voter ID law that was challenged in our state – a strict photo ID law. In that case – Crawford v. Marion County, 2008 – the Supreme Court addressed challenges to an Indiana photo ID law, both as being discriminatory against African-Americans and as being an undue burden on one’s right to vote, and concluded that neither had any merit. The ruling, written by the most liberal member of the Court, said that a strict photo ID voter law posed no meaningful burden to the right to vote. NC legislators fashioned our Voter ID law after that Indiana law. Since the Supreme Court had already addressed the issue in 2008, the district court should have dismissed the case based on stare decisis (“that which has already been decided”). Finally, taking these three items above into consideration and taking the discrimination aspect out of the equation and understanding that judges must not try to substitute their judgement or their views on racisms into a ruling, the Voter ID issue posed nothing more than a political question which falls OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the federal court system. The court should have dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

But hey, Democrats observe and obey no rules. They go to the federal courts for one reason and one reason only – their liberal/progressive judges are forged from law schools committed first and foremost to social justice and they have no allegiance or loyalty to any constitution. They are of the mindset that constitutions are ‘living, breathing documents” to be molded, interpreted, transformed, re-defined, or even ignored at will by judges who “know better” than anyone else. It is their job, they believe, to align the constitution, the particular law, policies, etc to the current state of social evolution.

To be clear and to address this topic honestly, Attorney General Josh Stein did announce this past Thursday that he would appeal Judge Bigg’s ruling for the November 3, 2020 election. Stein said that he would not request that ID be put back in place for the primary, which he said would only cause “voter confusion,” but would seek to resolve the matter in time for November’s Election Day. And to be fair to him, in a previous filing on behalf of Governor Cooper and the Elections Board, Stein’s office wrote that “an injunction would contravene the will of NC voters, who ratified the constitutional requirement for voter ID in the 2018 statewide election.” So we’ll see how this all plays out.

Also to be clear, Biggs’ ruling doesn’t put a final end to the issue because it’s a temporary injunction. In other words, it’s only meant to halt the law from going into effect until a full trial can be held to decide the issue more permanently. However, courts issue an injunction when they are fairly certain the law being challenged will eventually be struck down by the court when a trial is held.

A brief, but decent, overview of the two NC voter ID laws can be found in an article in the January 2 issue of the News & Observer (“Voter ID Case Puts Democratic Politicians Against NAACP, as State Leaders Will Appeal” – https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article238917153.html).

So here is the article from the CAROLINA JOURNAL –

NC ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH STEIN WON’T PUSH FOR VOTER ID IN 2020 PRIMARY

N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein will not seek to restore North Carolina’s voter identification requirement for the 2020 primary election. The decision announced Thursday, Jan. 2, prompted criticism from the state’s top elected Republican.

The announcement from Stein, a Democrat, responds to a federal court ruling that potentially blocks voter ID for the entire 2020 election cycle.

“In the federal litigation over North Carolina’s photo identification voting requirement, the North Carolina Department of Justice will appeal the district court’s recent decision to enjoin the law pending a trial,” Stein’s N.C. Department of Justice announced in a news release. “However, to avoid any further voter confusion in the primary election in which absentee voting begins in just 11 days and to ensure that the primary election proceeds on schedule and is administered in an orderly manner, the Department will not seek a stay of this injunction before the primary.”

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will review the district court’s decision, but we anticipate that photo identification will not be required to vote in the primary per the district court’s decision,” the release added.

Republican leaders had urged a quick appeal from Stein. GOP Lt. Gov. Dan Forest issued a statement on Stein’s “punt of voter ID.”

“It should be clear now to all North Carolinians that even though the people of this state voted overwhelmingly for photo voter ID, the Democrat Party — under the leadership of Governor Cooper, the tactics of Attorney General Stein, and the rulings of their activist liberal allies on the bench — has no intention of honoring the will of the people,” Forest said. “The only reason to oppose photo voter ID is if you intend to commit fraud at the ballot box.”

“If Attorney General Stein truly cared about voter ID, he would immediately seek review by the [U.S.] Supreme Court,” Forest added. “However, today’s action shows his intention is to never see an ID at the ballot box as long as he and Governor Cooper are in control.”

U.S. District Court Judge Loretta Biggs, an African-American woman and a Barack Obama appointee, blocked Senate Bill 824 in an order issued Tuesday, Dec. 31. That 2018 bill was designed to implement a voter-approved constitutional amendment requiring voter ID for N.C. elections. Biggs said racial motivation was a likely factor in the General Assembly’s crafting of the voter ID law. The N.C. NAACP, which brought the lawsuit, was likely to prevail in several of its allegations against the law, Biggs said.

Her order blocks the law from taking effect for the full 2020 election cycle unless the order is blocked or defendants win at a trial sometime this year. Lawyers for Republican legislative leaders had said Monday the order would have to be reversed by Jan. 13 to allow officials to prepare voters for an ID requirement in the March 3 primary election.

The General Assembly passed S.B. 824 in December 2018 over Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto.

State government defendants, says the order, shall take steps to stop mailings and other public communications that may be in production — but haven’t yet been sent — saying photo ID will be required for 2020 elections. The court orders those involved to work with local media, county boards of elections, and voter-education groups to take all necessary and reasonable steps to inform voters of this injunction and, specifically, inform voters no photo ID will be required to vote.

 

We all need to keep our eyes out for the next phase of this judicial challenge to our Voter ID law – when it has its full day in court. Judicial rulings are merely “opinions” meant to inform and guide the other branches into doing what is right and what is legitimate in light of our constitution, our laws, and the will of the people. They can be abusive (as when judges over-step their authority as judges or when they veer from an honest and unpolitical analysis of the issue), just as actions by the other two branches can be abusive and unconstitutional. And we must be ever vigilante when such happens. Why? Because opinions by a court or by a judge are not subject to review by any of the other branches. They are the highest tribunal in the interpretation of our constitutions and of our laws. Should our new Voter ID be struck down as being discriminatory or as being an undue burden (even though the Supreme Court has concluded to the contrary), we must be willing to conclude the ruling as an abuse of power – as an arbitrary decision reeking of political influence. We must not allow an abusive court ruling to “nullify” a duly-enacted law that serves the good, noble, and neutral intentions of the voters of our state – voter integrity. Good, law-abiding citizens of North Carolina have been pressuring the legislature since 2010 (it was a campaign issue) to pass a law to ensure that elections are fair and are free from voter and election fraud. We want to have confidence in our election results; we are tired of viewing each election cycle with great skepticism and tired of pouring over the election results to find endless inconsistencies. Elections are the democratic element of our republic.

In the meantime, let’s hope and pray that our new Voter ID law will survive its day in court and will be viewed in light of the purpose for which it was passed – to address voter fraud, and not to perpetrate an era of voter suppression that died many many years ago. The people of North Carolina are NOT evil racists or evil white supremacists as certain black advocacy and black racist groups allege. We are tired of the highly offensive rhetoric.

 

References:

Carolina Journal Staff, NC Attorney General Won’t Push for Voter ID in 2020 Primary,” Carolina Journal, January 2, 2020. Referenced at: https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/n-c-attorney-general-wont-push-for-voter-id-in-2020-primary/

Will Doran, “Voter ID Case Pits Democratic Politicians Against NAACP, as State Leaders Will Appeal,” News & Observer, January 2, 2020. Referenced at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article238917153.html

Christmas Message From the Rufino Family

 

by Diane Rufino, December 25, 2019

A heartfelt wish for a very Merry Christmas – from my family to yours.

Our wish is that faith and family are strengthened this holiday season and that each of us sees one another not as enemies but as friends, even when the situation would make it very hard to do so. In the end, we need to be reminded that we all claim this state and/or this country as our home, we all value peace and love, and we all have our particular views on just about every issue out there. Tolerance isn’t always easy, but we all need to give it our best shot. As John Kennedy once said: “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

We also are reminded that Christmas isn’t about gifts and parties; it’s about the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Our lives have been forever changed because our merciful God sent us his son to live among the Jews, to teach them, and ultimately to suffer and die for everyone’s sins in order that they may be forgiven and have eternal life with the Father. Christmas (and Easter) are the holidays we celebrate to remind us of this most wondrous of gifts. And hopefully we are reminded that we should conduct ourselves to show gratitude for this gift.

We honor the Lord best when we conduct our lives and make choices that reflect the lessons of Jesus. No amount of reading the Bible can substitute for the real life witnessing of his lessons in action. Christ taught us to love one another, to help one another, and to serve one another selflessly. We read these words and these themes in the Bible, but when you see people actually living these words and witnessing the difference they make in the lives of others and also how it blesses themselves, you see the power in those lessons.

John Winthrop brought this message to America in 1630 when he delivered a prayer to the Puritan settlers aboard the Arabella, as they were about to reach Massachusetts Bay Colony. He explained that the only way to convince others of the power of their faith and the benefit of the lessons of Christianity was to adhere to those lessons in their lives and have them guide their communities. He referred to that experiment as “a shining city on a hill.”

In offering a model for the Puritan settlement (“A Model of Christian Charity”), he first offered the reasons for it:

He might have the more occasion to manifest the work of his Spirit: first upon the wicked in moderating and restraining them, so that the rich and mighty should not eat up the poor, nor the poor and despised rise up against and shake off their yoke. Secondly, in the regenerate, in exercising His graces in them, as in the great ones, their love, mercy, gentleness, temperance etc., and in the poor and inferior sort, their faith, patience, obedience etc. Thirdly, that every man might have need of others, and from hence they might be all knit more nearly together in the bonds of brotherly affection.

And then, in explaining how to apply the model, he explained:

We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.

Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.

Several presidents have echoed this “shining city upon a hill” metaphor to somehow remind Americans of their duty and obligations to reflect goodness and Christian charity in the way they live their lives and therefore to influence the character of American communities, including Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. They believed in the best of human nature.

Our faith isn’t meant simply to help others and make us more into the servants that God and Christ intended us to be, but it is also to inspire those who are not intimately knowledgeable or inspired by the Gospels.

The classical pianist George Frideric Handel believed this. He used his oratorios to inspire, including his most famous – Messiah (with its “Hallelujah” chorus). The first London performance of Messiah took place at the Covent Garden Theatre (now the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden) on March 23, 1743, in the presence of King George II. When he heard the words, ‘The kingdom of this world . . . ‘ (Hallelujah Chorus) the King rose to his feet and remained standing until the end of the number. The king stood, most likely, to indicate he recognized Christ was King of Kings. When the king stood, everyone stood. The tradition of standing when the “Hallelujah” chorus commences continues. Following this performance, one of the British lords congratulated Handel on the excellent entertainment. Handel replied, “My Lord, I should be sorry if I only entertained them; I wished to make them better…”

Merry Christmas everyone. We hope that your holiday season centers around the one for who we celebrate this joyous occasion – Jesus. Let’s take his cue and strive to make others better by knowing us and having us take an interest in their lives. We make our country greater when its people are better, and we make the world greater when we indeed shine this light upon the world.

 

PHOTOLAB PIC - CHristmas 2019

IMPEACHMENT – Where Do We Go From Here?

IMPEACHMENT - how it works

by Diane Rufino, December 23, 2019

My friend Joe McLaughlin said that he heard that despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi choosing to hold back the articles of impeachment that House Democrats alone passed against President Trump from the Senate (until certain conditions are met – ie, “quid pro quo”), the Senate has the opportunity to act. He asked if this is true.

Here is how impeachment works, as I understand it. The Constitution speaks to impeachment process but not to an detailed procedure. It is a 2-part process, to be separated by 2 distinct branches of the legislature. It is an act of separation of powers, designed to temper political passions and to resort to reason and responsibility. All the Constitution says is that the House of Representatives can bring impeachment charges against the president (a simple majority is all that is required) but it is the Senate that has the power to remove him for those charges. Article 1, Section 2 states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” – meaning it alone has the power to bring charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against a president. The far greater responsibility lies with the Senate, as it should, since those representatives were (as the original Constitution provided) selected by the states and not the populace and hold a far longer tenure in office and hence are (or should be) more knowledgeable and responsible. Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” A president is removed from office by a 2/3 supermajority vote of the Senate. As you can see, there is no mention of procedure in the Constitution. The question we are pondering is this: Isn’t the House REQUIRED to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate IMMEDIATELY? To answer this, we have to look to the Senate’s own RULES governing how it handles its role, its procedure, in the impeachment process. Currently, those rules begin by stating: The first rule of impeachment procedure states that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”— the representatives who will act as the lawyers during the impeachment trial. After the House has presented its managers to the Senate, then the Senate takes the reins and launches its trial. If the Senate wants to frustrate Pelosi’s “quid pro quo” attempt, all it needs to do is alter its rules outlining the impeachment procedure in the Senate. It simply needs to put a time limit on the transmission of articles of impeachment to the Senate, asserting that any so-called “crimes” levied against the President under the impeachment power must be deemed serious enough to warrant immediate action by the Senate. Otherwise, they are not serious enough to have been brought against him in the first place.

In an opinion piece for FOX News by GianCarlo Canaparo titled “Pelosi Powerless to Delay Trump Impeachment Trial if Senate Does THIS,” Mr. Canaparo pretty much summed up the very same opinion. He wrote:

The first rule of impeachment procedure states that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”— the representatives who will act as the lawyers during the impeachment trial. After the House has presented its managers to the Senate, then the Senate takes the reins and launches its trial.

So can Pelosi delay an impeachment trial?  Yes, as long as the Senate doesn’t change its current rules. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping it from changing this rule, and the Senate should change the rule to prevent this sort of gamesmanship.

The Senate should not let Pelosi interfere with its constitutional obligations and its independence in this way.

Impeachment of the president shakes the nation to its core, and when, as here, it’s done in a nakedly partisan way, it divides the country and damages our constitutional framework. It needs to be over as quickly as possible.

So the Senate should change its impeachment rules as follows: once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence.

Having set this boulder rolling, House Democrats should not be allowed now to hold it up. They started this process. It’s up to the Senate to finish it on its terms alone. Not Pelosi’s.

As I pointed out earlier, the Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. But it can arguably be assumed that some modest delay might be expected. It certainly wouldn’t be inconsistent with the Constitution. But certainly an indefinite delay – and certainly a “quid-pro-quo” type delay – would pose a very serious problem. It might even rise to a “constitutional crisis.”

But FOX News isn’t the only opinion on Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles of impeachment.

According to leftist/ progressive Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who testified in favor of impeachment and on behalf of Democrats in front of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month, President Trump isn’t actually impeached until the Pelosi sends the articles to the Senate. He argues that impeachment, as contemplated by the Constitution, is a process. It does not merely consist of a vote by the House, but includes a trial in the Senate on those charges (the impeachment charges) to determine whether they are serious enough to warrant removal from office. Both parts – the articles of impeachment brought by the House and the trial in the Senate –are necessary to legally constitute “impeachment” under the Constitution. to make an impeachment under the Constitution: In other words, the House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

In an article he penned for Bloomberg Opinion, titled Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate, Professor Feldman wrote:

“According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”

In fact, President Trump is already hinting that this is his position.

And this brings us to another point – the Senate must actually hold a trial on the impeachment charges. Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Just as unreasonably holding back the articles of impeachment or indefinitely holding them back from the Senate frustrates and therefore violates the Constitution scheme of impeachment, failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would also clearly deviate from such expectations. It would deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides. We couldn’t, in good conscience as a “free nation,” deny the President of the United States, duly elected by the American people under the Electoral College system, the fundamental right to confront his accusers and to defend himself in a trial before a vote is taken on removal from office. Due Process demands that when there is a right at stake (the office of the presidency being the right in this case), there must be a legal procedure in place to allow the accused to confront and address those who try to deny him that right. The most debase and vile of criminals are guaranteed this right, after all.

The drafters and framers of our Constitution included the provisions for impeachment taking note of how it had been practiced in England. In England, the House of Commons brought impeachment charges and the House of Lords tried those charges. In fact, the whole point of Commons bringing the charges was for them to brought against the accused in the House of Lords, in the form of a trial. Strictly speaking, therefore, “impeachment” refers to the process of presenting the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. And, as emphasized earlier, at that point the Senate would be obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

If the House were vote to “impeach” Trump (which it did) but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, then while it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution, it certainly has technically violated it by intentionally acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s process of impeachment. Again, we see the logic in President Trump’s position.

With respect to Pelosi’s quid-pro-quo argument that articles of impeachment will be withheld until SHE deems that the Senate procedures are fair enough to the Democrats, Professor Feldman dismisses that position altogether. He asserts that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial. After all, that is what is explicitly stated by the phrase “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”

But even if we decide to overlook GianCarlo Canparo from FOX News and Professor Noah Feldman, there is still liberal law school professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz pretty much echoes the same position as Feldman.

Dershowitz further criticizes the Democrats for its second article of impeachment, which in his opinion is abusive and threatens the integrity of the impeachment process. He says that although the entire impeachment process by House Democrats smacks of partisanship, it is the second article of impeachment that particularly does so. And he is concerned for its effect in future attempts to impeach a partisanly-unpopular president.

While lamenting over this second article of impeachment, Dershowitz was encouraged by the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump, which he claims “pulls the rug out from” or “undercuts” the Democrats’ second article of impeachment. That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch.

In an article he wrote for The Hill, Dershowitz explained: “President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.”

He further wrote:

The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.

But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.

It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.

So, we have reasoned constitutional analysis that tells us that impeachment is a process by which articles of impeachment (“the charges”) must be delivered by the House to the Senate in a timely fashion and whereby a trial must be conducted in the Senate on those impeachment charges. Removal from office is a decision made solely by the Senate, based on procedural rules decided upon solely by the Senate. We further have reasoned constitutional opinion, by both liberal and conservative constitutional attorneys, that condemns the games that Nancy Pelosi is playing with impeachment and condemns further the very articles of impeachment that Democrats alone voted in favor of.

President Trump appears to be on very solid ground in his positions first to claim executive privilege with regard to the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas and second with regard to his criticism of the quid-pro-quo games Nancy Pelosi is playing by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate.

The House Democrats pursued their evil purpose and achieved their evil goal – to bring articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump. How proud they must be that they allowed an anger over losing the presidential election in 2016 to Donald Trump to consume their very being, blind their oaths of allegiance to the Constitution, and to corrupt their ability to act as responsible representatives over the most successful free nation in the world to the point that they have made a mockery of our very institution of government and have put the interests of a political party over the best interests of the country. Such a sad day in the history of our country. But the good news is that their part in the process is over. It is now up to the Senate to complete the process. Luckily we don’t have the same level of Trump Derangement Syndrome (or the same level of abject stupidity) in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi may try to continue playing games and rigging the process and twisting the rules and perverting the Constitution, but the truth of the matter is that her part is done and the process outlined by the Constitution requires her to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial in order that President Trump can have his day and defend himself. If she continues to play games, the Senate can force the matter by simply altering the procedural rules. And we hope that will happen to shut her up and to allow her to finally seek the psychiatric help she so sorely needs.

 

References:

GianCarlo Canaparo, ““Pelosi Powerless to Delay Trump Impeachment Trial if Senate Does THIS,” FOX News, December 20, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/giancarlo-canaparo-pelosi-cant-stop-trumps-trial-in-the-senate

Noah Feldman, “Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate,” Bloomberg Opinion, December 19, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Alan Dershowitz, “Supreme Court Ruling Pulls Rug Rut from Under Article of Impeachment,” The Hill, December 16, 2019. Referenced at: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment

Matt Vespa, “Liberal Lawyer: SCOTUS Just ‘Ripped the Rug’ from Under the Democrats’ Trump Impeachment Push,” Townhall, December 20, 2019. Referenced at: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/12/20/liberal-lawyer-scotus-just-ripped-the-rug-from-under-the-democrats-trump-impeachment-push-n2558364?utm_campaign=inarticle

It’s Not the Size of the Dog in the Fight; It’s the Size of the Fight in the Dog

TRUMP - wrestling belt

(Photo from Twitter)

by Diane Rufino, December 18, 2019

Mark Twain once said: “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.”

With President Donald Trump we have both the size of the dog and the size of the fight.

This is re-affirmed to us every single day.

Trump took on the historic tasks of making America great again, draining the DC swamp, and returning the government to the people, as he promised in his inaugural address. For these admiral goals, he has been vilified, persecuted, and hated.

For these admirable goals, we are witnessing evil-intentioned partisan political insiders attempt something that was also attempted in 1868 with Andrew Johnson – a political coup to oust a president that is intent on frustrating the policies and goals of a political party. The Radical Republicans wanted to punish the defeated southern states and use the freed slaves to re-make the body politic in the south to reject the Southern Democrats and to align with them politically. Only then would Lincoln’s War to force the South Back into the Union achieve its ultimate goal – to re-join the Union and to go back to paying all the protective tariffs. Johnson was impeached in the House for violating the Tenure of Office Act (hastily passed by the Radical Republicans to prevent him from removing the vile and ambitious Secretary of War (Edwin Stanton) that Lincoln had appointed but saved in the Senate from removal by only 1 vote. The Tenure of Office Act, by the way, was found to be unconstitutional. [Sounds like today’s ambitiously blind Democrats!]. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and the rest of the ilk initiated impeachment hearings after almost 4 years of conducting a witch hunt in their frenzied attempt to remove Trump from office. Since there was no crime to attach to Trump, one had to be found (or made up) – the so-called “insurance policy.” For that, a witch hunt needed to be initiated. And politically-motivated elements of the Obama administration, including Obama himself and the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were happy to accept the Steele dossier that was given to them by the Hillary Clinton campaign together with the DNC without verifying or confirming its accuracy and veracity. Why? Because the ends justified the means. When political insiders attempt a coup, they don’t care that it is based on actual facts or evidence of actual wrongdoing. And so these ambitious and rogue elements of our government presented this unverified and unproven dossier to the FISA court in support of its application for FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign, and withheld KEY information that the judges would have needed to prevent a fraud from being perpetrated on the court. These persons (criminals) without information proving the highly partisan nature of the information (it was intended merely for “opposition research” to be used against Trump by Clinton in her campaign, plus it was paid for by her and the DNC), withheld information undercutting the truth of the information (no verification at all; the only information to support it was given by Steele himself – from an article that he wrote – totally self-serving), and withheld information which would have persuaded the FISA court to protect Trump’s privacy (exculpatory information). The real Russian Collusion scandal was between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Obama, the FBI and DOJ, and the mainstream media – for the sole purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election.

Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Chuck Schumer, and the rest are attempting a political coup to undo a lawful election result that was constitutional and legitimate. They are attempting a political coup for no other reason than they are angry. They are attempting a political coup to undo the collective will of the American people who have been rightfully frustrated over the years by the political goals of DC politicians, have been robbed of their interests by the Deep State and by powerful special interest groups, and have been ignored and used/abused by Obama and the Democratic Party. The so-called “party of the people” (Democratic Party) is actually the “party of political elites.” It is a group of hypocrites skilled at mobilizing useless idiots.

WE MUST DO ALL IN OUR POWER TO SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP THRU THESE TRYING TIMES and MOST IMPORTANTLY, SUPPORT HIM in 2020 !!

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 !!