The Desperate Acts of a Dying Political Party

DEMOCRATS - Desperate Democrats

(Photo courtesy of BlazeTV)

by Diane Rufino, August 14, 2019

We cannot deny that the Democrats and those on the left are engaging in some terribly troubling and questionable conduct. And we know exactly why they are pursuing the questionable policies and the questionable direction they are pushing.

The explanation is simple: We are witnessing the desperate acts of a dying party. These desperate acts are designed to help them remain a viable party and to hopefully win elections. What are these desperate acts?

(1)  Democrats and rogue leftist elements of the federal government, serving under President Obama in the FBI and DOJ, committed many criminal acts against the United States when they set out to create a dossier implicating then-candidate Donald Trump in acts amounting to collusion with Russian officials to effect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election and then to use that dossier to launch full-scale surveillance on the Trump campaign using the full resources of the federal government. The goal, of course, was to poison the Trump campaign (which didn’t work) and in the alternative, to provide evidence of crimes to impeach him should he surprisingly happen to win the election. Democrats broke further federal laws by misappropriating classified government documents and memos and leaking them to the press and to other individuals. It was this leaking that ultimately led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and then a 2-year-long investigation into all things Trump. No other president was forced to face what Trump faced when he stepped into the Oval Office to run our country. First, he faced a very hostile mainstream media (so hostile that one commentator postulated what might happen if he were to be assassinated before taking the oath of office), then he faced a very hostile group of disappointed and maladjusted voters when they marched in Washington DC (the “Woman’s March”), then he faced an almost unanimous deranged Hollywood and Entertainment Industry crowd who spoke, posted, tweeted, or otherwise very publicly expressed their absolute hatred of him and his family, then he faced insane Democrats shouting “racist” at him and “Impeach Him” whenever they could grab a microphone, and then finally he faced the intense scrutiny of the Mueller investigation and the chilling of his actions that naturally results from such scrutiny.

For over two years, Democrats never gave up hope and never lost faith that Trump would be found to have committed actionable Obstruction of Justice, and when the Mueller Report was released and showed there was no such grounds for an indictment on obstruction, they absolutely refused to believe that the Report was correct. They were, and still are, manic disbelievers in the truth about Donald Trump, which is that he did not engage in any collusion with Russia to effect the 2016 presidential election, that he did not engage in any conduct that rises to the level of obstruction of justice, that he is not a racist, and that he is wildly popular and much-loved by the majority of the American people. They still hope to find some reason to impeach him. They will continue to probe every inch and every aspect of his life to find anything – anything at all – that they can use to try to impeach him. .

Democrats have been so completely consumed with hatred for Donald Trump that they have chosen to focus on harassing him rather than serve the general interests of our country. In other words, they chose to put hatred of Donald Trump over love of country.

(2)  Democrats are pushing to abolish the Electoral College. They want presidential elections to be tied to the national popular vote, which is controlled by between 10-15 of the nation’s largest cities. These cities, of course, are concentrated areas of liberal identity groups; in other words, the want the nation’s largest (liberal) cities to pick our American president. The hell to all the other areas of the country, which tend to be conservative and rational.

(3)  Liberal Democrats delivered a threatening brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, instructing them to “straighten up” or else Congress will “restructure” the Court. You can’t make this up, folks. Ignoring the age-old “Separation of Powers” doctrine and the “check and balance” that such a separation provides, liberal Senate Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York sent an “amicus brief” to the Supreme Court, in support of the state of New York in the current case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, accusing the high court of being “sick” and “motivated primarily by politics” and thus being inept at continuing to rule on important cases.

The amicus brief ended with this paragraph, which certainly sums up their position quite well:

“Today, fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics” (up five percent from last year); fifty-nine percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”; and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

The Democrats never complained about political motivation on the Court when it was engaging in the most egregious exercise of judicial activism in cases such as Roe v. Wade (abortion case, 1973), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (the bussing case, 1971), Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda warning needed when a criminally accused is taken into custody and before he/she makes any statements, 1966), National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case, 2012), Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage, 2015), and so many others.

(4)  Democrats are threatening a duly-appointed and duly sworn-in conservative Supreme Court justice with possible impeachment. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who together chair the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee, wrote a letter last Tuesday (Aug. 6) to the head of the National Archives and Records Administration asking the agency to provide Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s records from when he served in the George W. Bush administration as staff secretary and in the White House Counsel’s Office, spanning the years 2001-2006. In that letter, the representatives wrote: “In the coming year, the Supreme Court will again address important matters regarding civil rights, criminal justice, and immigration. The Court may also review certain high-profile cases related to reproductive rights, the separation of powers, and the limits of executive authority — all topics within the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee,’ and they have concerns that Kavanaugh will be able to rule with equal and impartial justice, based on some “inappropriately partisan statements” he made during his confirmation hearing and his “behaving in a demonstrably hostile manner.” We certainly all remember how forcefully and passionately and honestly he pled his case in trying to clear his good name… in front of his family.

Hmmmmmm….. This letter from Nadler and Johnson, this concern of professionalism on Justice Kavanaugh’s part, comes after Senate Democrats spent months launching false accusations against Judge Kavanaugh in an attempt to smear his reputation and block his confirmation to the US Supreme Court. And it also comes immediately after a judicial panel, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, ruled to dismiss ethics complaints filed against Kavanaugh, finding that it did not have authority to review the claims against him because confirmation to the high court excludes him from the ethics rules in question.

Apparently, House Democrats refuse to take NO for an answer, just like they refused to give up on the notion that somehow Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton and just like they refused to give up on the notion that Trump somehow committed obstruction of justice in reaction to a fabricated and contrived allegation. Apparently, House Democrats refuse to give up another fishing expedition to tarnish his good name and threaten him with possible impeachment.

They are seeking to harass and then impeach Justice Kavanaugh for no other reason than he is a strong conservative justice, appointed by their sworn enemy, Donald Trump. Such a brazen and dangerous precedent to set. Again, they have chosen to dismiss the notion of Separation of Powers and have chosen to disregard the respect members of Congress are expected to have for justices of the Supreme Court.

(5)  Democrats are opposed to the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws and refuse to participate in any solution to address the illegal immigration situation. In fact, when President Trump characterized the situation at the southern border as a “national crisis,” they went ballistic. It was clear, and continues to be clear, that they put the interests and issues of illegals over the rightful concerns of American citizens (and taxpayers). Democrats want – and NEED – illegal immigration in order to build a new basis of Democratic voters. Their radical and un-American rhetoric is being lost on their traditional supporters. Long-time Democrats are finally realizing that the party has not delivered on its promises and even more, that it is taking the country in a very dangerous direction. At the end of the day, many long-time Democrats are realizing that they love their country more than they feel loyalty to the Democratic Party.

(6)  Democrats are pushing, in their states, laws to allow illegals to vote. Again, they are pushing these laws because illegals are their new voting base. Illegals want the free services and the representation that the Democratic Party is willing to give them (at the expense of legal citizens and from their purses).

(7)  Democrats fought strenuously to fight President Trump’s initiative to put a Citizenship question on the national Census Bureau Survey. The census is required by Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution to be taken every 10 years. Article I, Section 2 states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States… according to their respective Numbers… . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years” Section 2 of the 14th Amendment amended the section to remove the phrase “and excluding Indians not taxed and three-fifths of all other persons” and to substitute that the respective numbers of the respective states will be determined by “counting the whole number of persons in each State… excluding Indians not taxed…” In other words, the purpose of the census is to determine the numbers of persons in each state in order to determine the number of representatives that each state will have in the House of Representatives. It has always, ALWAYS been assumed that “persons” for the purpose of representation refers only to “legal citizens.” Democrats want all people to be counted (that is, they don’t want to the Census Bureau Survey to distinguish between illegal aliens and legal American citizens) for the state’s representation in DC as a way to increase their number of representatives (or at the very least, to keep their high numbers, as in the case of California, the state making the greatest noise over the citizenship question). They want to inflate their numbers using illegal aliens.

(8)  Democrats talk about “transforming the government of the United States and “transforming the Constitution.” Just recently in New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders promised, if elected, to “transform the government so that it works for everyone, and not just the 1%.” Other Democratic presidential hopefuls have delivered similar promises or are putting out similar rhetoric. This theme goes back to a promise that candidate Barack Obama made when he was running to be president in 2008. He promised to “fundamentally change the United States,” when he was in Columbia, Missouri on October 30, 2008, on the cusp of his historic presidential election. Obama pretty much made good on his promise, although he had hoped to go much further. Luckily, President Trump is steadily un-doing and unraveling the damage that Obama had done. Immigration is one big area, the military is another, our relationship with the many nations of the world is yet another, and healthcare will be the next. Fundamentally changing the United States means that those systems and institutions providing the foundations for our country and our society must be changed or substituted or abolished. Religion has already been attacked; national hostility to religion continues to grow in order to replace morality and biology with the LGBT and transgender agenda. The Constitution defines our government system and for years, we watched as a liberal majority Court has “transformed” the meaning of the document through a soft interpretation of a “living, breathing document.” Hard interpretations are those made by an analysis of a constitution that has a clearly defined meaning, unchanging in time, with explanations and instructions provided by those who wrote, ratified, and engaged in the debate that led to its ratification and adoption. Democrats believe in soft interpretations; they believe that Article V (outlining the only legal way to amend the Constitution, which is the amendment process) is essentially useless and that the Constitution can be amended by men in black robes from the Supreme Court bench who view it as a “living, breathing document,” being capable of being transformed by courts to bring it in line with changing social times.

(9)  Despite the obvious crises that plague our country – illegal immigration, drug smuggling and drug trafficking, human trafficking, opioid overdoses, morbid obesity, an intolerant millennial population, Antifa and other violent leftist protest groups, mass shootings, an under-educated general population that lacks requisite speech, reading, writing, and math skills, too many people on government assistance and not contributing to society, and fear and crime, to name a few – Democrats assert that the real crises in the country are racism and white supremacy. Every time a conservative opens his or her mouth, and especially when President Trump opens his mouth, Democrats shout “RACIST!” Every time a conservative speaks out against illegal immigration, including President Trump, Democrats should “WHITE SUPREMACY!” Democrats love to assert that it is Donald Trump’s rhetoric that is causing division, anger, frustration, hatred, and violence in this country, when in fact, it is the rhetoric of the Democrats that is causing all of those things.

Which party and which party’s rhetoric has been responsible for the unprovoked killing and other violent attacks on innocent police officers? It is the Democratic Party. Which party and which party’s rhetoric has been responsible for the attacks, the harassment, and the threats against ICE agents?   It is the Democratic Party. Members of the Democratic Party explicitly and expressly encourage people to harass and otherwise do harm to ICE agents and its facilities. Which party and which party’s rhetoric has been responsible for the savage beating, the bullying, the threats, the assaults, and the destruction of personal property of those who hold different political views? It is the Democratic Party that has not only created Antifa and other such homegrown terrorist groups, but it constantly encourages them to shut down the speech and the venues of conservatives. The members of which party have called on people to “show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from [Trump’s] Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere” ? It is the Democratic Party that has called on its party members to physically harass Republicans and their families. Which party refers to the opposing party using the most disgusting and vile of terms, comparing them to body parts, and telling them they should be doing things with certain body parts or they should be raped ? It is the Democratic Party, and in particular members of the Hollywood and Entertainment industry. They can’t help but act uncivilized.

In short, modern-day Democrats are a group of un-hinged and un-American politicians and voters that despise our American system, despise President Donald Trump and all those who support him, despise the wealthy, despise our Constitution, despise our Founding Fathers, despise our Rule of Law, and despise deeply what our country has historically stood for. They believe that representation in the federal government is not about serving the American people as a whole and to meaningfully (and constitutionally) address our nation’s problems but rather it’s about frustrating President Trump, harassing him and his family every single day and for every single reason, about opposing Republicans, about fomenting hatred and division among identity groups, about ignoring the immigration, drug, and human trafficking crisis stemming from our southern border, about preventing the enforcement of our immigration laws and encouraging and increasing illegal immigration, and about advancing their progressive agenda for political, social, and government change.

Ask yourself this: A party that is so readily willing to ignore our Rule of Law, to ignore and disregard the US Constitution, to transform the Constitution to meet the party’s political needs, to allow for the invasion of our country by aliens for the sole purpose of quickly changing the body politic in order to gain the votes it needs to stay in power, to put the interests of illegal aliens before the rightful concerns and expectations of American citizens is a party that will readily turn its back on the people just as soon as it consolidates its political power.

Desperation is a dangerous thing.

 

Reference:

Amicus Brief submitted to the Supreme Court from US Senate Democrats, in furtherance of the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/New%20York%20Rifle%20&%20Pistol%20Association%20v.%20New%20Yor

Advertisements

Trump Supporters Not Treated Fairly in Recent USA TODAY Article

TRUMP and OMAR (Courtesy of Second Nexus)

(Photo courtesy of Second Nexus)

by Diane Rufino, July 31, 2019

This past Saturday I met with a reporter with USA TODAY for an interview regarding the Trump Rally on July 17 in Greenville “and it’s aftermath.” This reporter traveled from DC to Greenville to do this story. We spoke for at least an hour and a half about the rally, about the diversity in age of those in attendance at the rally, about Donald Trump, about Greenville, about North Carolina, about North Carolina values, about North Carolina history, about the Tea Party movement and its actual and perceived purpose, about the Eastern NC Tea Party in general, about Tea Party principles, about the left’s campaign to smear anyone who holds a different viewpoint by claiming “racism” or “racist,” about race relations in Greenville, about our mayor P.J. Connolly and his incredible energy and commitment to the town, and of course, about the chant (“Send Her Back”) that has now become the left’s new claim of “racism” from Trump and his supporters.

I was warned by probably every single person I know not to meet with USA TODAY because the leftist paper “will no doubt twist what you say” and “end up doing a hatchet job on you.” Yet I chose to meet with the reporter anyway. I thought that, being that I had actually attended the rally, had in fact attended about 5 or 6, have grown up being familiar with Trump (in New Jersey and New York, where I grew up and then went to grad school, respectively), had written an article on the rally, and have a history of strongly defending the Tea Party movement and Tea Partiers, I would surely be able to help explain the chant, help explain the support for President Trump, and effectively counter the allegations from the left about the chant being racist, about Trump supporters being racist, and about the chant now dividing our community.

And to be honest, all said and done, when I left the interview, I was confident I had accomplished what I set out to do. The reporter seemed open to what I had to say.

But then the article came out yesterday – “NC City Wrestles With Echoes of ‘Send Her Back’” (Link: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/07/29/send-her-back-chants-trump-rally-open-wounds-greenville-nc/1828979001/ ]

I think Beth Capillary, president of the Republican Women of Pitt County said it best when she told me: “I was disappointed in what they chose to print from all you discussed with her. She tried to make us look mean-spirited. I never trust the main-stream media. At a time when we need healing and honest reporting, we get articles like this. I fear the mainstream media is going to frame the whole 2020 election in terms of race and racism. But to be fair, some of the comments she printed from you were good.”

I have serious criticisms and disappointments with the article and I need to address them:

(1)  I was interviewed for about an hour and a half and the snippets she used in the article were not indicative or representative of my answers or explanations. I feel she sabotaged me to a good extent in that respect.

(2)  I knew the article would focus more on the views of the left (and indeed I was warned about that) and I was prepared for it. It’s just a shame that the article focused more on the views of those who do NOT support the president and those who were NOT present at the rally than on those who attended the rally and could speak more accurately and correctly to the chant. Of all the people interviewed and referenced in the article, only two actually attended the rally – myself and Greenville Mayor P.J. Connolly. Mayor Connolly, unlike myself, claimed he didn’t even hear the chant. The others interviewed and emphasized in the article are not supporters of President Trump and did not attend the rally (no surprise). Samar Badwan, the Muslim woman who heads Greenville’s Human Relations Council, for example, said she chose not to join the protest of Trump’s rally but “knew it wasn’t going to be pretty.” Sounds like she has already written Trump off as being someone who is hostile to her community’s interests or her party’s platform. This seems to beg the question – Who is the real hater ?

If I were writing the article, I would have focused on the first-hand accounts of those who actually attended the rally and the views of those supporting the president and then asked those who do not support the president, those who may feel offended by the chant, and those who didn’t attend (thereby relying on secondhand soundbites and the mainstream media’s account of the chant) to respond and comment. The reporter, in this case, chose to approach the article from the opposite point of view.

The article gave in to the “version” of the rally and of the chant that the left (probably fueled by the Democratic Party, Democratic party leaders, and the mainstream media) has come up with – which always, always, always involves some sort of allegation of racism. By giving into the version that the left has decided to promote, USA TODAY has decided to intentionally push a false narrative, to help tarnish Greenville, NC, to create division in our ordinarily close-knit town, and to help the left continue to frame the 2020 election in terms of race and perceived racism from the right.

One specific question asked of me was: “Do you think the chant and its aftermath is dividing the community?”  My answer was clear: “I think the left’s characterization of the chant and the constant promoting of that version by the mainstream media is what is dividing the community – and intentionally so.”

(3)  The article cites a comment I made regarding Mayor Connolly’s statement that he was extremely disappointed and disheartened by hate-filled calls and emails he had received after the rally (including from those who said they would never visit his city). First of all, what I was told about Mayor Connolly was quite different than what was printed. I was told that he said he didn’t hear the chant but then chose to condemn the chant, saying that “hate will never have a place in our community.” According to the account I was told, it sounded like Mayor Connolly didn’t care what the audience meant by the chant and didn’t care to support the more innocent version of the chant but rather immediately caved in to the characterization of that chant by the left. It sounded like he chose to believe it must have been racist (even though he wasn’t actually paying attention during that part of the rally). I did however, follow up with the reporter by explaining in great detail that Mayor Connolly is the most excellent mayor we’ve ever had, telling her all the things he is supporting, explaining his strong ties to the community and his love and loyalty to Greenville. None of that was included in the article.

(4)  The gist of the article was that the chant defined the rally and the crowd who was there to support Trump and it was divisive, mean-spirited, and racist. But none of that is true. The truth is that only a small minority of those in attendance actually chanted “Send Her Home.” The entire section of the arena where I sat (off to the side of the stage), which was a large section, sat quietly and did not engage in the chant. My husband and I looked around and took note of that. In fact, it may even explain why Major Connolly claimed he didn’t hear it. I saw him at the rally (with his wife and small children) and he was having a great time. He was smiling, laughing, and conversing with friends and acquaintances he ran into. The chant was in response to comments by President Trump. He simply quoted her words and especially several of the vile comments she made attacking our country, its policies, its greatest friend and ally in the Middle East (Israel) and defending terrorist organizations and terrorists in particular. I don’t think most people at the rally thought the crowd’s reaction was appropriate response to the incessant anti-American rage that has been spewing from the mouth of Rep. Omar, which is what President Trump reminded the crowd.

Could the chant have been phrased differently? Probably so. But chants are spontaneous, often originating from a single member of the audience and then picked up by those around him or her. As one commentator noted: “It was a political rally – not a church service.” But here is another question: Was Rep. Omar using the platform given to her as a US Congresswoman to comment on US policy from a representative of the US point of view or from a Somalian and radical Islamic point of view? Was she misusing her platform to serve her own ideological motives? Trump’s comments, in a sense, were that if Rep. Omar hates this country so much and is so motivated to berate it at every chance she gets, why is she even here, (“America, Love It or Leave It”). It was not racist and certainly was not meant to suggest that Trump strip a US citizen of her citizenship and send her back to her country of origin. The people who support Trump are extremely patriotic and do not take kindly to people, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN GOVERNMENT, who despise our country and speak badly of her. Anyway, I am upset that the article’s focus was on how the chant reflects badly on Greenville and on Trump supporters instead of offering the truthful explanation of the chant and instead of explaining that our gripe is in the offensive speech that comes out of Omar’s mouth and not in the fact that it is coming out of a Muslim woman’s mouth. Such is the evil-intentioned leftist media.

There is a problem in this country and it’s a serious one. Those on the left, in good part, are incapable of separating message and speech from the color or nationality of the person speaking it. If someone doesn’t agree with the speech spoken by a Muslim woman, it’s because that person is clearly racist against Muslims. Ir someone doesn’t agree with the message spoken by an African-American woman, it’s clearly because that person is racist against people of color. It can never be that the reason those on right disagree with someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum is simply because of the content of the speech. In the minds of those on the left, there must always, always be a more sinister explanation. There must always be some outright or implied racism. There must be some actual or latent racism on the part of the conservative, on the part of the conservative white person. We on the right are so very tired of racism, etc being imputed on us in everything we do, everything we say, and everything we stand for. Racism is simply not there and we’re tired of the manufactured hatred. Clearly, the hatred is coming from the left. We saw how racism is pervasive on the left – we’ve seen it for many years now. When African-American lawyers for the woman who claimed several Duke lacrosse players raped her (a totally false allegation and a HUGE miscarriage of justice, yet she was not punished) imputed guilt on the lacrosse players in the media by claiming: “We all know white boys can’t help themselves around black women,” there was no outrage in the media or in the country over that horribly racist and reckless statement. When Al Sharpton used racial stereotypes against 4 white boys to defend Tawana Brawley (who again, made the totally false allegation that the 4 white boys attacked her), he condemned whites as generally being incapable of not being racist. When President Obama, then Michelle Obama, and then Hillary Clinton publicly stated that white people are incapable of not being inherently racist (even if its subconsciously), no one showed any outrage at the outright racist comment. No one dared to stick up for the white person or for the conservative. To do so would itself have been labeled as “racist.” There has been a steady attack against white culture and a steady condemnation of whites and of conservatives as being inherent racist probably beginning in the 80’s but definitely in the 90’s. I imagine it was part of an intentional progressive agenda to divide our country along racial lines in order to further political goals and social policies. One should always keep in mind that law schools these days are not simply “law schools” but centers for “social justice.” As many lawyers will comment, some of these schools and some of these liberal law professors see racial and social injustice where it doesn’t exist. One such example is in classroom management and school policies to address infractions of the school code, incidents of sexual abuse and violence, and breaking the law or other criminal offenses (such as drug offenses, theft, etc) which social justice warriors now claim are intentionally discriminatory to African-Americans.

There is not a single conservative person that I know here in North Carolina or from back home in New Jersey who has any racist intentions or any racial animus. The people I know and associate with are inclusive, welcoming, color-blind, and tolerant. What we are NOT are tolerant of those who hate our country, who push for policies to erode our freedoms, who condemn policies that keep us safe and secure, or who disparage it for no apparent reason than our country’s values don’t coincide with radical religious values or because our country doesn’t enough for those who sure non-citizens or because our country still hasn’t done enough to make sure that everyone shares in the new definition of “equality” which means that everyone is entitled to “equal outcomes” and that certain people are automatically entitled to the wealth and property of others. We love our country and we love what she stands for. We are proud that she has helped to advance freedom and independence in the world and that she has wrestled countries and peoples from genocidal and oppressive regimes. We are proud that for the most part (except for weak presidents like Carter and Obama and even Clinton, internationally), our country has offered hope to those around the world who are repressed and targeted with violence. This is not to be confused with a policy to allow our border to remain open to all those who want to relocate here, which is an idiotic policy to say the least. Conservatives are principled; they are not racist. There is a big difference. The left just can’t seem to grasp that concept.

I know it isn’t always easy being a reporter and finding a way to report objectively and fairly on an event or an issue, but I will always hold out for honesty and integrity and will expect the same from others. Honest reporting on an event should never be sacrificed in order to advance or promote a political agenda. The first is the reason for the expansive protection given the press by the First Amendment; the latter is not.

NULLIFICATION: The Power to Right Constitutional Wrongs

NULLIFICATION - John Greenleaf Whittier (Abolitionist and Nullifier)    by Diane Rufino, July 9, 2015

THOMAS JEFFERSON wondered how the country would respond in the case its government passed a law that was clearly unconstitutional. As Secretary of State under our first president, George Washington, he already witnessed the wheels of government try to enlarge provisions in the Constitution to give the administration unchecked powers to tax and spend. Washington would establish the first National Bank. Jefferson knew the trend would continue. And it did.  Our second president, John Adams, signed the Alien & Sedition Acts into law, which were laws addressing the Quasi War (undeclared) with France at the time. The French Revolution just killed off the monarch and his family and tensions flared up between the new French republic and its old rival, England. There was an influx of French immigrants and Americans were split in their support of the old French system or the new republic. Although the Alien Acts (3 of them) were offensive, it was the Sedition Act that was most glaringly so. The Sedition Act made it a crime (fines and jail sentences) should any person “write, print, utter, or publish, OR cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, OR assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States….”   The Constitutional red flags went up at once.  The immediate violations jumped out to men like Jefferson and Madison, and many others. While the Alien Acts violated the 10th Amendment and the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment, the Sedition Act was a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment and its guarantee of Free Speech (most importantly, political speech!)  John Adams, a Federalist, saw nothing wrong with any of the laws.  Neither did his Federalist co-members of government or his Federalist judges.  Thomas Jefferson, the Vice President at the time (since he got the second highest votes in the election of 1796) wasn’t a Federalist. He was a Republican-Democrat (a party he founded).  [Notice that the Sedition Act protected everyone from slander EXCEPT the VP !!].  The Checks and Balances didn’t work. Political power was more important than the rights the government was created to protect!

And so, convictions quickly followed. Journalists, publishers, and even congressmen were fined and jailed. Not a single person targeted was a Federalist. The only ones targeted were Republicans.  The men who wrote our founding documents – Jefferson and Madison – began a series of correspondences to discuss what should be done to prevent such unconstitutional laws from being enforced on people who had a rightful expectation of exercising the liberties promised in the Declaration and in the Bill of Rights. (And of course they had to be very careful lest they be convicted under the law!)  Jefferson saw that there are 3 possible remedies when a government tries to enforce unconstitutional laws..  (1) Seek an opinion from the Judiciary;  (2) Secession; or  (3) Nullification.  Jefferson advised against the first two remedies.  He said the first was unpredictable and unreliable. He believed justices were men motivated by the same passions, political motivations, thirst for power and legacy, and opinions as politicians and could not be counted on to be impartial interpreters of the Constitution. He also realized that the judiciary was only one branch of government (the least powerful at the time), and although it would render an opinion, Congress and the President were not required to abide by its ruling. Furthermore, the courts were all Federalists at the time and were part of the problem!.  Jefferson said secession was certainly a legitimate option (after all, the Declaration itself was a secessionist document), but said it was far too extreme and every effort should be made to keep the union together in a workable fashion.  The third option, he said, was “the rightful remedy.”  Nullification, he said, was the remedy inherent in the states’ ratification of the Constitution, inherent in the doctrine of federalism, a remedy grounded in law itself, and the remedy that would allow hot tempers to cool and would prevent states from threatening to leave the Union.  Madison agreed.

Nullification is the doctrine which states that any law that is made without proper legal authority is immediately null and void and therefore unenforceable. Laws have to be enforced by officials – federal and state. When the government passes a law pursuant to its powers, it is supreme and binding. Every level of enforcement recognizes the law. States are obligated to uphold it and help enforce it.  An example are the federal immigration laws.  When the government passes a law that it has no authority to make – such as the Sedition Act, which offends the 1st Amendment which is a strict prohibition on the government with respect to individual speech (political speech) – then in terms of legality, the law is null and void.  For a government to try to enforce it would be an act of tyranny. (Tyranny is defined as a government that abuses its powers and enforces unpopular laws).  Since the law is null and void, no enforcement agency should force the law on the people. Government will never admit its law is unconstitutional or unenforceable and so it is up to the states and the communities (and their enforcement agencies) to prevent such law from being enforced.  The states are the rightful parties to stand up for the people against a tyrannical act of government. When the government assumes power to legislate that it was not granted in the Constitution, it usurps (or steals it) from its rightful depository, which are either the States or the People (see the 10th and the 9th Amendments).  Every party must always jealously guard its sphere of government; it’s bundle of rights.  States have their powers of government and people have their rights of self-government (ie, control over their own lives, thoughts, actions, and property). Again, if we look at the Sedition Act, the government under John Adams passed the law by attempting to steal the rights of free speech from the People.

Well, immediately, Jefferson and Madison got out their pens and drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and of 1799 (Jefferson, for the Kentucky state legislature) and the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (Madison, for the Virginia state legislature).  Both states passed them, declaring that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable in their states.  The Virginia Resolutions were especially forceful because they announced that the state of Virginia would take every step possible to prevent the enforcement of the laws on its people.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson wrote:

  1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, he wrote:

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that anullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy……

In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison wrote:

RESOLVED……. That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

The government hates the doctrine of Nullification and has used every opportunity to discredit it.  And it makes sense.  And doctrine that gives power to the States is offensive to the federal government. It makes them harder to control. We all know how angry the government gets when any state criticizes or attempts to frustrate the government’s laws, policies, and agenda.  Nullification, like secession, is a fundamental sovereign power reserved to each state. Since the states did not form the Union by unlimited submission to the common government they created, certain powers remain vested in them.  Despite what Lincoln and Obama may claim, the states did NOT create, or attempt to create, or even envision creating a “perpetual” Union by ratifying the Constitution.  Those words are merely wishful thinking by despots and revisionists.

NULLIFICATION - When Injustice Becomes Law, Nullification Becomes a Duty

The biggest tool the government has in its arsenal to shut down the discussion of Nullification is RACISM.  According to the government’s position – as evidenced in texts, government spokespersons, liberal pundits, college professors – Nullification is a racist doctrine that was used to help the states resist integration following Brown v. Board of Education (1953). For years, the southern states were demonized and punished by the northern states for the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression) and because the North was forcibly and quickly transforming their society, there were actions that would clearly be classified as “reactive” and “lashing out.” The North, as the victors of the war, had the benefit of writing history and telling the “official” story.  Nullification was used once in the south after the Brown decision. It was used by the governor and state legislature of Arkansas to prevent integration of the schools in the state (they amended the state constitution). They believed the decision was arbitrary and unconstitutional and believed the court had no power to enforce it. After all, approximately 1/5 of the entire membership of Congress signed a statement in 1956 pretty much declaring the same thing. They also feared what would happen given the level of hostility in the state. But Little Rock continued to move forward with its plan for desegregation. Eventually, in 1958, the Little Rock School Board filed suit asking for a court order allowing them to delay desegregation. They alleged that public hostility to desegregation and opposition created by the governor and the state legislature created an intolerable and chaotic situation. The relief the plaintiffs requested was for the African-American children to be returned to segregated schools and for the implementation of the desegregation plan to be postponed for two and a half years. The case went to the Supreme Court, which declared that no state had the right to ignore any of its decisions. Citing Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the Court emphasized that its decisions are binding on all the states and that to ignore them is to “wage war on the Constitution.” In other words, opponents of nullification assert that this case stands for the premise that states cannot nullify federal laws.

Racism invites passion. It questions motives, clouds judgment, obscures facts, and shuts down debate. Racism assumes that no party has any grievance or concern more important than that of the African-American. It assumes there is no part of history more important than slavery, abolition, and Jim Crow.  Racism never dies, according to the government.  Racism never dies, according to the irresponsible media.  Perhaps it is no coincidence that our current government is fanning the flames once again in history of racism and making sure we are once again defined as a racist nation. In this time when Nullification should be the topic everyone wants to re-address, the countering argument will always be: “Look, they’re trying to go back to the days of segregation.”

And so, I wanted to write this to emphasize the REAL story of Nullification..  and the REAL success of Nullification.  It wasn’t in light of the Alien & Sedition Acts. It wasn’t the publication of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (because, let’s be honest, most of the other states were too timid to adopt similar resolutions and so the states, in the end, didn’t stand up to the government as Jefferson and Madison had hoped. There were probably 2 reasons for this: (1) The Acts were set to expire at the end of Adams’ term, which was only 2 years away so why get their panties in a wad; and  (2) the Union was extremely fragile at this point  – rebellions all over the place over the government’s authority to tax and collect – and the states didn’t want to exacerbate the situation.  The real success story of Nullification was in the rejection of the Constitution’s Fugitive Slave Laws.

Yes, the American flag, believe it or not, was the official flag of a slave nation for 77 years (1788 – 1865).  Slavery was protected in the United States by the Constitution for those years. Although slave importation had been abolished by the time the Constitution was ratified and the Union was created, the institution itself was still constitutional. Not only was it constitutional, but slaves, as property, were required (by the Constitution) to be returned to their owner. State agents, courts, and instrumentalities were required to enforce these federal laws.  But abolitionists in the North, like Rosa Parks herself sitting on a seat in a public bus, knew that the laws were revolting and fundamentally wrong.  Through civil acts of disobedience, like Ms. Parks refusing to give up her seat, those in states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, either outright enacted laws which nullified Fugitive Slave Laws or they acted to frustrate or otherwise render useless any attempt to enforce them. Nullification was a very successful way for escaped slaves to finally realize freedom in the North. It’s pretty hard to claim Nullification is racist, like its opponents do, when it served such a public good (while the US Constitution protected something so evil).   The following video does an amazing job to educate people on the history of Nullification and to explain its power to right wrong.

https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/videos/10152871564545764/?fref=nf  (from the Tenth Amendment Center)