The Road to Impeachment: Trump Calls Pelosi’s Bluff

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

(Photo Courtesy of Gage Skidmore, US Coast Guard)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump decided to go with option #4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Reference:

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

Advertisements

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

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.

In the Lap of the Gods (ie, federal judges) – Trump’s New Asylum Policy

Asylum Seeks (Fox 8)

(Photo credit: Fox 8)

by Diane Rufino, July 26, 2019

The tyranny of a dysfunctional system that permits plaintiffs to forum shop in order to find a single district judge who will purport to dictate immigration policy to the entire Nation … must come to an end.” — Stephanie Grisham, White House press secretary

Last Tuesday, President Trump’s new asylum policy went into effect. As we all know, the Trump administration has been pursuing meaningful changes to our immigration policy to fight back against the crisis at our southern border – the gross lawlessness and disrespect for our laws, the human trafficking, the drug trafficking, and the influx of violent gangs to prey on our youth. Unfortunately, President Trump been working with a very hostile Democrat-controlled House of Representatives and a very hostile pop culture that views any policy that denies any person anywhere a right to residency in the United States, a right to taxpayer-funded programs, and a right to continue illegality and criminality in our cities and communities as racist and as violative of human rights. But aside from the wall, which is moving forward, the new asylum policy is a forceful attempt to meaningfully cut down on the number of people seeking asylum here in our country.

The new policy requires that any migrant who passes through another country on their way to the United States MUST seek asylum in that country and be denied in order to be considered for asylum in our country. If it is truly about escaping from an oppressive regime in their home country, then once they’ve entered another country, they’ve achieved their goal and they should be happy to take their chances with another country (especially one sharing the same language and very close to their own culture).

Most migrants arriving at our southern border applying for asylum (coming from Central America, Haiti, Cuba, and Africa) necessarily pass through Mexico. They likely also pass through other countries. Why not apply for asylum in Mexico? Isn’t it better than other countries like Haiti (a true shithole of a country), Cuba (poor and oppressive; communist), other poor Central American countries, and many countries in Africa? Mexico isn’t communist. It isn’t a repressive socialist country. And it happens to have the 15th largest economy in the world.

Under the former asylum policy, asylum seekers had to pass a “test” to be considered for asylum status in the US. It used to be an easy test: applicants needed to assert a “credible fear” of remaining in their country – of persecution, violence, genocide, etc. Under this simple test (where the applicant asserts his or her “credible fear” through an interview process), most applicants have been able to pass this hurdle. But under Trump’s new policy, there is a subsequent hurdle. Applicants will now need to show that they have sought asylum in at least one country that they traveled through to get to the US and were denied. Most will fail this second hurdle. Why? Because the real goal of the trip to the US is not about escaping the “credible threat” but about coming here and taking advantage of all the benefits our country offers (especially to those who have no professional skills and are at the poverty level or below). Applicants who fail this second hurdle will be placed on fast-track deportation status. They will be afforded a quick proceeding concerning their application for asylum followed by a flight back home to their country of origin – all at taxpayer expense.

Cuban migrants claim special status because they say that once they leave, they will not be allowed back. They also claim that the first country they arrive at on their way to the US is Nicaragua, a communist country. They certainly don’t want to seek asylum in another communist country. But they don’t explain, and they can’t logically explain, why they can’t seek asylum in Mexico.

Trump’s new asylum policy was immediately challenged by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), the Southern Poverty Law Center (an anti-white hate group), and other civil liberties groups. These groups technically lack standing to sue – they themselves will not suffer great harm by the new policy. Yet, they filed motions seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) , to block the implementation of the policy. But President Trump defends the policy by saying that immigrants, especially lately, are taking advantage of our nation’s asylum policy and taking advantage of services provided at US taxpayer expense. Trump also acknowledges that these latest groups of migrants (including migrant caravans), which just so happens to have formed since he took office, are being prompted and aided by asylum support groups here in the US (including legal assistance) and by the Democratic Party.

One commentator had this to say about Trump’s new policy: “Most migrants pass through both Guatemala and then Mexico to get to the United States. These migrants are claiming that they need to escape from their home country because of some ‘credible fear.’ Well, once they leave their oppressive home country, they’ve escaped from the oppression. So, is it really about escaping the fear and persecution of their home country or is it more about coming specifically to the US?”

On Wednesday, July 24, a federal judge in DC, District Court Judge Timothy Kelly denied the motion asking for the Temporary Restraining Order. He explained that the groups challenging the policy did not show that their work would suffer “irreparable harm” if the policy went into effect (which is the proper threshold question for such a request). Judge Kelly was appointed to the bench by President Trump.

However, as expected, a federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Jon Tigar, agreed with challengers and went ahead and issued a TRO, putting a hold on the new asylum policy. He issued his ruling also on Wednesday, just hours after Judge Kelly denied the motion in DC. The White House has condemned this ruling, referring to it as an example of “judge shopping.” As White House Press Secretary, Stephanie Grisham commented: “The tyranny of a dysfunctional system that permits plaintiffs to forum shop in order to find a single district judge who will purport to dictate immigration policy to the entire Nation … must come to an end.”

The case will eventually head to the Supreme Court.

The article below, posted on July 25 in the Epoch Times, addresses Judge Tigar’s ruling:

“White House Slams Judge’s Order Blocking Asylum Restriction,” by Petr Svab

On Wednesday, July 24, at the request of activist groups, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked President Trump’s new asylum policy. The new policy is an administrative rule that denies asylum to people who pass through countries where they could apply for asylum on their way to the United States and who have chosen not to do so. According to the new policy, if a migrant passes through any other country before reaching the United States and has NOT applied for asylum in that country and been DENIED, he or she will not be eligible for asylum in the United States.

Just hours earlier, another federal judge in Washington denied a similar request from a different group of plaintiffs.

INJUNCTION POWER  —

The administration has complained for some time about what it calls “activist judges,” whom it accuses of blocking its policies on ideological grounds. “Too many judges believe it is their right, their duty, to act upon their sympathies and policy preferences,” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in an Oct. 15 speech, calling judicial activism “a threat to our representative government and the liberty it secures.”

Among the specific issues Sessions pointed out were the nationwide injunctions, in which a judge presiding over a local case blocks the executive action in dispute across the nation while the case proceeds through the courts. He explained: “In the first 175 years of this republic, not a single judge issued one of these orders. But they have been growing in frequency and, since President Trump took office less than two years ago, 27 district courts have issued such an order.” Attorney General William Barr voiced a similar concern on May 21, saying “the legal community and the broader public should be more concerned, particularly about this trend of nationwide injunctions.”

In 2018, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion that nationwide injunctions “are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system….. I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions … If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.”

Earlier in May, Vice President Mike Pence said the administration will “seek opportunities” to have the Supreme Court review whether district judges have the legal power to issue such injunctions in the first place.

“It’s imperative that we restore the historic tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence said.

IMMIGRATION BATTLE 

Judge Tigar ruled in favor of advocacy groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The policy would have limited exceptions that would allow for asylum: if someone has been trafficked; if an asylum-seeker sought protection in a country but was denied; or if the country the migrant passed through didn’t sign one of the major international treaties that govern how refugees are managed, which most Western countries have signed.

The decision comes as tens of thousands of people wait in Mexico on official and unofficial lists formed after U.S. agents started turning away many asylum-seekers, citing a lack of space and delays in immigration courts. They also include people sent to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through the U.S. immigration process, another Trump policy that has so far survived a legal challenge.

Tigar’s ruling is the latest example of courts blocking Trump’s immigration policies. A court stopped the administration from detaining asylum-seekers without giving them a chance to be released on bond. A judge in Oakland, California, prevented the Trump administration from tapping $2.5 billion in Pentagon money to build border barriers. (The administration has appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and has asked for a ruling by July 26).

 

Reference: Petr Svab, “White House Slams Judge’s Order Blocking Asylum Restriction,” Epoch Times, July 25, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-slams-judges-order-blocking-asylum-restriction_3016853.html?ref=brief_News&utm_source=Epoch+Times+Newsletters&utm_campaign=611b5ebe3e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_25_06_27&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4fba358ecf-611b5ebe3e-239825589

Trump’s Rally in Greenville, NC was a YUGE SUCCESS !!

Donald Trump

(Photo Credit: This photo is the property of Spring Hope Enterprise)

by Diane Rufino, July 19, 2019

On Wednesday evening, July 17, President Donald J. Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence came to Minges Coliseum, home of the ECU Pirates’ men’s and women’s basketball teams, to continue kicking off his 2020 presidential campaign (“Keep America Great!”). VP Pence listed the incredible achievements of our great president and then introduced the man everyone crowed into the arena to see – President Trump (MAGA man) himself – the 45th president of the United States and the only US president to make his daily priority, every single day, the fulfillment of the promises he made to the American people during his 2016 election campaign. “Promises Made, Promises Kept.”

The election of Donald J. Trump was a great moment in history, not simply because of the political movement he helped to galvanize, but because Trump did something that perhaps only one other president dared to do – he told the people he was working towards two fundamental goals – to Make America Great Again (to put America and Americans first) and to hand the government in DC back to those to whom it works for – the American people. Every time I hear President Trump speak, I am reminded of those very critical and historic words he spoke in his Inaugural Address back on January 20, 2017 – a day some liberal reporters hoped would be met with an assassination attempt. He said:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you. It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.

Indeed, these words were very Jeffersonian, and Thomas Jefferson was the Founder who most clearly and succinctly articulated our founding values and principles, including the inalienable right to a government that serves the people, and especially in the free exercise of their God-given rights and the equal right to “alter or abolish” that government when it becomes too ambitious and ends up frustrating the purposes for which it was established.

President Trump did not disappoint. With the incredible energy that he brings to every rally, he reminded attendees of the great movement in 2016 and of the historic victory on election night. He reminded them of his promises and how he has kept them. The turn-around in our country, the prestige we hold on the world stage, the additions to the Supreme Court and our lower federal courts, the attention to the illegal immigration crisis and the human trafficking and drug trafficking crisis, and the economic successes of all the special groups in the United States is a direct testament to the fact that Trump has committed himself to work for the American people and to address their reasonable expectations as citizens. He promised to expose the Swamp in DC, expose their self-serving back-door schemes, and to drain it, thereby making the federal government more transparent and more accountable to those for who it works – the American People and the individual States.

The most controversial point of the night was when President Trump talked about Rep. Ilhan Omar and all the controversial things she said since being seated in the US House (representing the Minneapolis area). He re-iterated a theme that has been very popular since the 1960’s – “AMERICA: Love it or Leave it.” Bumper stickers with those words were popular, aimed at the discontented youth who (right or wrong) seemed to find a great amount of fault with the United States. Trump expressed his opinion that if Omar has such hatred for this country and has such little respect for this country, and if her feelings run so deep that she is actively seeking to undermine and change the values and policies which have defined our country for a long time, then why did she move here? Why didn’t she stay in her home country of Somalia and work to make changes there? The crowd responded with the chant “SEND HER HOME.”

As you can imagine, this chant became very controversial and the backlash has been utterly ridiculous. People have complained, commenting: “How dare we talk about sending an American citizen back to the country they originally came from.” Please, please, please with the nonsense and the inability to see the chant for what it was – a reference to the theme that Trump led with (if you hate our country, do don’t need to be here. Love it or leave it!). President Trump himself felt a little uncomfortable with the chant, as he commented after the rally, but he understood what the crowd meant. Good and decent American citizens are getting increasingly frustrated and intolerant of those who are here but hate our country and hate what she stands for.

Trump broke stride in his remarks to talk about the upcoming special elections in our state – in the third congressional district (with NC Rep. Greg Murphy) and in the ninth congressional district (with NC Senator Dan Bishop). He introduced both candidates and reminded attendees that he needs them to be elected to fill the respective open seats and to help him further his agenda. Dr. Murphy promised to support Trump in his remarks, and Dan Bishop, in a wonderful entertaining fashion, told the crowd that although there are two candidates running for the seat named “Dan”: “I am the RIGHT Dan!” He also promised to support Trump in Congress.

President Trump recognizes that North Carolina will hold a very important role in the 2020 election, and we can be sure that he will be visiting our great state many more times between now and Election Day 2020. And we will look forward to it.

We will look forward to working hard to keeping our state red and keeping our state supportive our great president. We will also look forward to working hard to getting our Republican candidates, Dr. Murphy and Dan Bishop, elected in our third district and our ninth district, respectively. If we support President Trump and if we truly support his agenda and want to help him further it, we need to elect those who will do his bidding in Congress.

Thanks to all who worked hard to help make the rally an exceptional event. And thank you to all the fine attendees who exhibited such outstanding conduct and showed such caring and compassionate attention to their fellow patriots. Several elderly men and women were stressed, exhausted, and even dehydrated from the extreme heat and the long wait, and the care they received from total strangers (those getting them cold water, a seat, an umbrella, sitting with them) was inspiring.  Our community is truly a loving and caring one.

Democrats Continue to Devolve the US into an Evil, Heartless, and Uncivilized Nation

 

ABORTION - late-term abortion

(Photo Credit: Robert Valencia)

by Diane Rufino, March 1, 2019

This past Monday, February 25, US Senate Democrats blocked a Republican bill – The BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT – that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t attempt to save the lives of infants born alive during failed abortions.

Why are Democrats openly embracing infanticide? What demons do they have whispering in their ears? What devil sits on their shoulders? What evil master do they serve?

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina (a HUGE proponent of Life).

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

To most people, it is a no-brainer that a doctor or other health-care professional should preserve the life and health of a newborn. Am I wrong to believe that the medical profession still adheres to the historic oath that dates back to Greek times, the Hippocratic Oath, which states that a doctor shall seek to preserve health and preserve life, to endeavor to do no harm?  The modern version of the oath includes this statement: “Above all, I must never play God.”

Ironically, one classical version of the Hippocratic Oath addresses abortion: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”

Last week, I watched the 2018 movie GOSNELL: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer with members of my Tea Party group. The movie chronicles the investigation by Philadelphia Police and the DEA of Kermit Gosnell, the infamous abortion doctor who operated an abortion clinic in Philadelphia, and his subsequent trial. Initially investigated for overprescribing OxyContin (oxycodone; an opioid derivative of heroin), a raid on his clinic uncovered horrors beyond description. He was charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit (“viability”), and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law (patients must wait 24 hours after proper consultation by the clinic). The murder charges related to a woman who died following an abortion procedure, and seven newborns who were killed by having their spinal cords severed with scissors after being born alive during attempted abortions. Surprisingly, the defense was able to mount an extraordinary defense of Gosnell and his practices, including an admonition by the judge that nothing asserted in the courtroom would be allowed to contradict a woman’s abortion rights. Towards the end of the trial, the prosecution was able to locate a young girl (in her teens) who worked at the clinic and who happened to take pictures of the babies who had their spinal cords severed by Dr. Gosnell.  When asked on the stand why she took the pictures, the girl responded to the effect that the babies were so big and so perfect and they looked like they should have been welcomed into a family, with brothers and sisters. She thought there should have been some record, a picture, to acknowledge their existence. Those pictures were shown to the jury, and one by one, their hearts melted and they looked down or began to sob.  Why? Because they inherently connected with the humanity in a newborn and even in a full-term fetus. Dr. Gosnell had committed atrocities that shocked their conscience. My suspicion is that they may have been convinced by the defense to overlook the successful abortions of a full-term fetus, but to take that additional step with callousness and without regard to the life on the medical table in front of him, struggling to move and breathe, wanting to be warm and cradled and comforted and kissed and loved, and take its life was an act of pure evil.

Inherently, we value life and we act under the teachings of compassion and care that our religion has impressed on us, even at some point in our lives.

The sad and tragic thing about this law is that it even needed to be introduced at all.  Providing medical attention and care to a newborn, even if it is a product of a failed abortion attempt, is the natural, the right, the intuitive thing to do.  How can those who would want medical care for themselves have the right to decide to deny it to others?  A life is a life.  It’s not defined by number of years but by DNA and breath and a beating heart.  It’s defined by an instinct to survive and continue living.

After the vote, President Trump tweeted: “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

Today the left uses the excuse that a baby inside the womb is the sole property and concern of the mother to justify its extermination. What will tomorrow’s excuse be?  Usefulness?  Competency?  Old age?

Here are my questions regarding this vote on this Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and in fact, regarding the extreme position that Democrats/liberals/progressives take on abortion rights in general:

(1)  Why do Democrats/liberals/progressives believe that abortion rights are broad and extensive enough to encompass a right to make sure that the abortion is successful, to the point that it includes infanticide?  In other words, why do Democrats/liberals/progressives believe that abortion rights are broad and extensive enough to include the right to condemn a baby born alive to be killed? The one thing the Roe v. Wade opinion seems to be clear on is that as long as the unborn is still inside a woman’s womb, it is not a life for which the Constitution or our laws can provide protection. But once that unborn has actually been born, then, as the opinion supports, that baby is now a new “life.”

(2)  The Fourteenth Amendment reads: “Section 1. 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.”  According to the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, any baby born, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, is a citizen and therefore a person with recognized liberty rights. If that is the case, then any person who terminates that life after birth, again even if that baby has suffered from an attempted abortion and even if that baby was intended to be condemned by the mother, is guilty not only of murder, but of intentional, premediated murder.

(3)  Democrats/liberals/progressives believe what Roe v. Wade stands for – that as long as the unborn is inside a woman’s womb, she has complete control over its destiny.  But once it emerges from the womb, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, then don’t both parents (mother AND father) have parental rights to that newborn baby?  Our child support laws would suggest so.

(4)  And if that “unwanted” baby should emerge from the womb, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, then wouldn’t that newborn baby become the ward of the state?  That is, wouldn’t the government (society in general) have the right and duty to care for it?

(5)  If all of the above are true, then how could any member of Congress, taking an oath to the Constitution, vote against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

(6)  The proper approach by government would have been to legislatively define LIFE at some point during fetal development.  (See my article “RESOLUTION to Define LIFE Through Legislation”).

To echo President Trump’s words, this vote by the US Senate “will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

 

References:

“Dems Block ‘Born Alive’ Bill to Provide Medical Care to Infants Who Survive Failed Abortions,” FOX News, February 27, 2019.  Referenced at:  http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us-world-news/dems-block-born-alive-bill-to-provide-medical-care-to-infants-who-survive-failed-abortions#/

Diane Rufino, “RESOLUTION to Define LIFE Through Legislation,” For Love of God and Country, February 24, 2019.  Referenced:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/02/24/model-resolution-to-define-life-through-legislation/

President Trump Takes Issue with Democrats at the SOTU and Announces Plan to Protect the Lives of the Unborn

RIGHT TO LIFE - Texas A&M Health Science Center

(Photo Credit: Texas A&M Health Science Center)

by Diane Rufino, February 6, 2019

Thank You, President Trump for taking the initiative to acknowledge the humanity in an unborn child and thank you for pointing out the inhumanity of those would-be mothers who choose to abort the life inside them.

Last night in his State of the Union Address, Trump announced that he will ask Congress for a bill outlawing abortions when the fetus has developed to the point when it can feel pain.

He said:

“I am proud to be the first President to include in my budget a plan for nationwide paid family leave, so that every new parent has the chance to bond with their newborn child.

There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments from birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies…. And then, we had the case of the Governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth.

To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. “

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (from the hedonist state of California) and Senator Chuck Schumer (from the killing fields of New York) called a border wall to prevent criminals and drugs from flooding into our communities “immoral” but these same Democratic leaders and Democrats everywhere think it’s perfectly moral to ignore the humanity of the life growing inside a woman’s womb to the point where that life can be sacrificed as it passes through the birth canal. It is about time we acknowledge that human beings create life in a woman’s womb, and it’s a woman’s role in this thing we call nature and the circle of life. Indeed it is the greatest of all God’s blessings for her to be able to do so. The absolute moral thing to do is to respect this miracle and to respect life, even if that life cannot yet function independently. We were all dependent on a mother at one time – both in her womb and then for a couple years after that.

Trump is bold. Trump is just. Trump is right. A woman’s right to control her reproduction is not a complete right… It is not broad enough – it CANNOT be broad enough – to include the right to kill another human being, again no matter how young and helpless that human being is.

 

References:
Full transcript, President Trump’s State of the Union Address (2019), White House – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-state-union-address-2/

White House Briefings, 2019 State of the Union Address (Feb. 5, 2019) – https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu/