by Diane Rufino, Oct. 7, 2016

Elections and the Collusion of Corruption: The Engineering of Political and Government Tyranny. Its tools are voter fraud and massive collusion of political power.

INTRODUCTION –

The current generation of Americans is a sad generation. An unfortunate generation. They are far removed from the days when the country struggled with its rich heritage – a heritage forged in England with the 600-year struggle for independence from an over-bearing King. When an overbearing King George III and British Parliament evidenced a similar design to oppress the colonies and deny its people the rights and liberties that had been asserted time and time, the colonies revolted, took up arms, and fought successfully for their independence. The promise of a new land truly dedicated to individual liberty together with a long history strongly suggesting that such liberty is always short-lived, motivated our Founding Fathers to do something extraordinary. They drafted a form of government to overcome the limitations and shortfalls of Great Britain and in that system, they embedded many levels of checks and balances.

One of those checks and balances is the doctrine of Separation of Powers, a doctrine articulated by Montesquieu in his book The Spirit of Laws (L’esprit des Lois”), in which he explains society’s need for government and the need for protections in that government to prevent abuse. The Separation of Powers doctrine is based on the natural tendency of government to concentrate power; the concentration of all political power – legislative, executive, judicial – in the hands of one man, a few men, or even a government entity is total tyranny. Such a man, group of men, or government entity with such a monopoly over the scope of government power is the most dangerous of all. One only needs to look at Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin, and other totalitarian rulers. Now, if government power is divided among its branches with the understanding that each branch will jealously guard its sphere of power, then power should remain separated and contained. After all, one branch that tries to assume more power has to misappropriate it from another branch. This doctrine is most powerful when there is a Constitution which legally limits power to all branches, which supposedly is what our system provides. The caveat is and what has always been is that the Constitution must be respected.

The second check and balance is the most powerful of all in our American system – our system of Federalism. Our Founders divided government power between two powerful governing entities (sovereigns) – the States (considered to be the most powerful on most objects of government) and the federal government (only powerful on the limited areas listed in the US Constitution). What makes this design element so unique and so essential to the maintenance of a limited government is that it uses each powerful sovereign to keep the other in check. Sovereign against Sovereign; Titan against Titan (to invoke an analogy in Greek mythology). Again, each sovereign is supreme over its area of responsibility. The belief was that each sovereign (each Titan) would forever jealously guard its sphere of responsibility. The government’s powers are expressly delegated in the Constitution. All other areas are reserved to the states, as the American people were promised first in the Articles of Confederation (Section II, immediately following the declaration that the name of the new American Union would be the United States of America, which was Section I) and currently in the Tenth Amendment. The US Constitution has never been amended to take any of the States’ reserved powers away from them, including during and after the infamous War of Northern Aggression. For clarity on the States’ reserved powers, one needs only to look at Federalist No. 45, written by James Madison, the author of the Constitution and the man who attended every day of the Constitutional Convention, documenting the discussions and debates and capturing the collective understanding of the terms and provisions of the document as understood by all of the States (through their delegates) at that historic gathering. Federalist No. 45 goes into detail about the general character of this separation of sovereign power. Federalism is the last in our government’s series of Checks and Balances. (Maybe most important!)

The checks and balances were always intended to limit government and prevent the type of government abuse that has eroded a free society in the societies of the past. The more limited a government is, the greater its people can exercise their rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Checks and balances, to put it another way, were included in our form of government in order to prevent a monopoly over the meaning, purpose, and scope of government.

Going back to my first paragraph, our current generation is far removed from the struggles to prevent the government itself – just the powers in Washington DC – from consolidating its powers in order to affect such a monopoly. The monopoly was actually perfected the year the Supreme Court decided for itself that its branch had far more power than originally granted in Article III of the US Constitution. That was the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Its implications were noted by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others and warnings went out. True and honest students of history, government, and law know of these warnings, and appreciate them. But while the federal monopoly had been established, it was not clear whether or how it would be used to grow the government in DC. The biggest fear, as most realized at the time, was the government monopoly’s unique ability to destroy federalism, the critical design feature of our American government. It was only in very recent years that the tyranny threatened by this monopoly has finally become a reality. Because our current generation was not lucky enough to enjoy the freedom that many of us enjoyed many years ago, they cannot recognize what is becoming of their lives and their existence in the United States. They don’t know what has already been lost and they have no idea of what they will continue to lose.

Encroachments on State governing power began with the Lincoln administration (with his many violations of the Constitution and then with his decision to deny them their sovereign right of self-determination with secession) and continued in the years following Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. The federal government, after first declaring that they never seceded because they never had the right to do so and hence were merely “rebellious states” which were still part of the Union, then suddenly announced that they had to “re-apply” to become part of the Union again. The government first put them under military rule and then required that every Southern state meet certain punishing requirements in order to be “admitted back into the Union,” including submitting new state constitutions (asserting that they have given up their right to secede, that their primary allegiance is to the federal government and its laws, and that they adopt both the 13th and 14th amendments. Should any Southern state not meet these conditions, they would continue to live under the laws of a Congress that included only northern representatives and no representatives of that states. In other words, they would be subject to the most extreme form of tyranny. “No taxation without representation” would be nothing compared to the existence the Southern states would have to endure. And so, defeated and humiliated, dominated and subjugated, the Southern states complied. The federal government would fundamentally change its position vis-à-vis the States and sadly, with respect to the American people themselves. Many historians would declare that the government, transformed as a result of Lincoln’s total consumption of government power and continued during Reconstruction, became an illegal, illegitimate government at that moment. Many historians would also point out that the 14th amendment was not legally proposed and ratified by the States, as required by the very terms of Article V of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment would be the great tool used by the federal government, and particularly by the Supreme Court and progressives, to strip power from the States and greater perfect the monopoly of power in the federal government.

The stripping of sovereign power from the States and the further erosion of federalism (ie, the further consolidation of power in the federal government) would continue at the turn of the 20th century and then into the years we fought WWII. 1913 was a bad year for States’ rights (the 17th amendment took selection of Senators from the States as political entities with sovereign interests) and for the right of individuals over their earnings and investments (the federal income tax was enacted: the 16th amendment). It was, however, a great year for government, first for the power to plunder the wealth of its citizens (16th amendment) and for the power to control the value of money and to print it at will (the creation of the Federal Reserve).

During the 1960’s, there was another great assault on the States with the government declaring that schools and other public entities are forbidden to allow prayer in their functions. Religion must be stripped from the public domain and States are powerless to protect such an exercise. And during the 1970’s, the government asserted itself in the public school building by requiring that school districts be intentionally designed and created to meet racial quotas. The government ushered in the era of busing.

Through its laws – namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in particular, certain provisions of each (such as Title 4 and Title 5 of the Voting Rights Act), the federal government continues to demand that the States (the Southern states and some districts of other states) forfeit their sovereign rights over traditional and historically-recognized state matters (ie, “tenth amendment reserved powers”) so that the government can weigh in on them and then tell the States what it will “allow them to do.”

This past week, thanks to WikiLeaks, we have learned the extent of the Democratic Party’s connections to the US Justice Department and to the massive liberal media. We have seen where the moderators in charge of the presidential debates, including the debates during the primary season, have been instructed closely by the Democratic Party machinery as to what questions to ask the GOP candidates and then Trump in particular. We have seen the inherent bias in those debates. We have seen the even more dubious bias in the media, which everyone knows influences the voters who have little interest or time in doing research for themselves. We have seen how the Party has given assurances to Wall Street and foreign leaders/ foreign entities to pursue certain policies advantageous to them while deceiving the American people that just the opposite will be done. We can only imagine where our tax dollars and our valuable resources will be diverted to and for what purposes. We have read emails which show that a certain Democratic presidential candidate has been given a “pass” by the US Department of Justice, for one, by not performing a proper investigation, as would be required of anyone else who breached national security protocol. We have seen that the Democratic Party and its associates have control over the ballot systems which will be used by most precincts in the US.

What these revelations show is that there is a massive COLLUSION OF CORRUPTION which one goal in mind – to dupe the American people and to ensure that a political party gains control of the White House. We all know that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to lead the country – her experience, her track record of accomplishment, and her judgement are all far too flawed and deficient and therefore prove so. But the party itself needs to control the White House. It needs to control government and to continue implementing its plans for this country.

What this actually means for you and I is that this Collusion of Corruption is divesting us of our rightful voice in government. Our very democracy is being undermined and eroded. Our rightful place in the grand scheme of our government structure is being diminished and minimized right before our eyes.

We are witnessing the engineering of political and government tyranny. The government monopoly that has been instituted for government purposes, and which has consistently and steadily worked in favor of growing the federal government and its power (the cornerstone of Democratic policy), apparently is no longer strong enough or effective enough for the political elitist class. We are witnessing something very alarming and serious: When the Democratic Party’s (Progressives’) interests are threatened by a growing popular movement, it is willing to engage in massive collusion and corruption to neutralize that movement. It will do anything to ensure that its interests remain paramount and that government works for its own interests rather than for the benefit of the States and for the good of the American people – the purposes it was established for. In the past, Democrats and progressives doggedly pursued their goals of government power, challenging the nature of the Constitution and appointing judges and justices to erode that foundational document in order to strengthen the government monopoly in their favor. That system is alive and working fastidiously, like termites on a pillar of wood. And as it erodes our Constitution and its guarantees of limited government and essential rights, the people have taken notice. And they are reacting and rebelling – politically. It is this political unrest, this push-back against the government, which has prompted the Democratic Party to come up with new tactics. It appears that its modern-day tools are voter fraud and massive collusion of political power.

As we have seen members in government, including members of the Republican Party, a party ideologically entrusted to counter the designs of the Democrats, side with this party of dubious tactics, we can only conclude that government, and its committed agents, have designs of their own, independent and distinct from the interests and concerns of the average American citizen.

THE ISSUE –

In 2013, the NC General Assembly duly and rightfully enacted a common-sense Voter ID law. Its primary purpose was to cut down on voter fraud and to ensure the integrity of the voting process. Voter confidence and election integrity had eroded terribly over the past few election cycles. Opportunities for voter fraud were being identified by the Democratic Party (community organizing tactics and tactics of the Democratic-controlled unions) and actual instances of such were being documented not only in North Carolina, Illinois (who can forget the 1960 election!), Florida (which refused to prosecute the perpetrators), and Indiana, but all over the United States as well (see Ohio, Colorado, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, etc). Despite the interests of the people and the state legislature of North Carolina in ensuring that the voting process in North Carolina is transparent, accountable, and free from illegal voting schemes, the US Federal Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (a branch of the federal government; a liberal/progressive fringe element of the federal government), decided to disregard the wisdom of a state legislature and to substitute its judgement for both the people and their duly-enacted government and strike down the Voter ID almost in its entirety.

We know the Constitution protects an individual from discrimination in the exercise of his or her right to vote, and we know that the Constitution demands Equal Protection, so doesn’t this beg the conclusion that the Constitution also requires that common-sense procedures be allowed to be in place (including the right to have a voter prove his or her identity and residence) to ensure that no one’s vote is diluted through this very essential democratic process? After all, if there is one constitutional bright line rule that stands out above all else regarding an individual’s right to vote, it is this: One Person, One Vote. In other words, a person is entitled to have his or her vote count fully and completely, without dilution. Where does dilution come from? It comes from a process where someone’s vote is counted more than others.

So, in light of this decision by the 4th Circuit and with massive fraud and collusion evidenced and confirmed, both working against the American voter, and with the outcome of an election so critically at stake, what can the battleground state of North Carolina do?

The greater question, of course, is what WILL it do?

THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION –

On Wednesday, August 31, the US Supreme Court rejected a last-effort move by Governor Pat McCrory to ensure that our Voter ID law will be in effect on November 8 for the presidential election to reduce likely efforts by the Democratic Party machine (and the Clinton Crime Syndicate) to vote illegally and to cast doubt on and make a mockery of the election process here in North Carolina. The US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit handed down an OPINION at the end of July declaring our Voter ID law unconstitutional because it “intentionally discriminates” against African-Americans.” In a split 4-4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by the state of North Carolina to that preposterous opinion by the 4th Circuit. Because the Supreme Court will not take up the case (which, according to the very words of the Constitution, it was SUPPOSED to hear), the decision of the 4th Circuit is supposed to stand. At least that’s what the federal government would have you believe, and would have the States believe. Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution reads: “In all cases where a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court SHALL have original jurisdiction.” Shall = Must. To be sure, the challenge to the Voter ID law was directed at “The State of North Carolina.” In other words, the case NEVER should have been heard in any of the inferior courts – the federal district court OR the 4th Circuit. The ONLY federal court which can hear the case is the US Supreme Court. And since it appears that the Supreme Court has no interest in taking up this particular issue or has no interest in taking up another Voter ID law (it already ruled in 2008 that a strict Photo ID requirement was not an unreasonable burden for ANYONE on their right to vote or their exercise thereof), it would make sense that IF the Constitution was adhered to, North Carolina would have its Voter ID law intact for this upcoming election.

First of all, let’s be clear: the federal courts don’t issue DECISIONS; they issue OPINIONS. On the top of their “judicial decision” is written the words “THE OPINION OR THE COURT.” We have to ask ourselves a very hard question: Do we honestly believe that men (in the case of the Courts of Appeal, it only takes 2 justices out of a panel of 3) should have the full power to make decisions interpreting our Constitution and deciding matters that redistribute power from one rightful party to another? If, when such decisions threaten, burden, or destroy the rights of a State or the rights of the individual, what is the rightful recourse? Is the rightful response to cower, give in, surrender? Or is the rightful response – the American response – to side with traditional American principles of liberty, essential rights, federalism, limited government, the rights of the individual? Is it unconstitutional to ignore abusive judicial “opinions” or is it a proper exercise of civil disobedience and a proper exercise of State sovereignty (under the Tenth Amendment)?

A State must always keep in mind its critical position in the grand scheme of our government system. The Declaration of Independence declares that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.” Relying on this very public and very historic document in the design of our common government, our Founders provided several procedural safeguards to secure these essential principles. One of those procedural safeguards – and the most important one for sure – was the division of government power between the States and the federal government. To ensure that the federal government continues to secure the rights of individuals and does not abuse, oppress, or burden them in any way in their exercise of essential liberties, and to ensure that it remains centered on its legitimate objects of governance, the States are supposed to stand up in opposition on every infraction of the federal government. This is a principle of government that supersedes the terms of the Constitution. Implied in the Constitution ratified and adopted by the States is the power of those parties to see that it is enforced.

And so, with a duty expected of it, but a history of subjugation, what should the state of North Carolina do?

It is this citizen’s opinion that North Carolina should do one of seven things: (1) Call the state legislature into an emergency session the week before early voting begins and pass another Voter ID law (making minor changes but still keeping the spirit of the law intact – requiring reliable identification to vote); (2) Ignore the opinion of the 4th Circuit, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal (just as the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to hear it), citing Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as legal authority; (3) Ignore the OPINION of the 4th Circuit citing just that… it is only an opinion” and the state, in its equal ability to interpret the Constitution, does not agree; (4) Claim that the opinion directly calls each of the state legislators a “racist,” defames them as individuals and as a political and must be rejected as libelous and therefore illegal; (5) Claim that the opinion offends traditional notions of States Rights and under the Tenth Amendment, the state has the right and duty to defend its sphere of legitimate governing power, which includes common-sense voting laws; (6) Claim that the opinion is a clear violation of the Separation of Powers because the Court went out of its way to substitute its judicial opinion for the legislature’s rightful opinion as lawmakers and therefore illegitimate and unenforceable; or (7) Governor Pat McCrory should issue an Executive Order to all Boards of Election instructing them that a reliable identification is REQUIRED of all persons who show up to vote (and whoever cannot produce one must then-and-there, sign an affidavit and submit to having his or her photo taken). In the Appendix, I have attached a sample Executive Order.

BACKGROUND –

While we are bustling about living our lives – going about our laborious days working (one-third of the time to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s), raising our children, putting them through college, caring for loved ones, taking care of our property – we had hoped that the Constitution would stand, immovable, impenetrable, unshakable, and steadfast for the rights and the principles that over a million Americans sacrificed their lives for. That’s what a constitution is – it is a fixed and permanent rulebook for the government as well as a documented grant of assurance that We the People will be able to live our lives without much government interference. Within only a few years after the Constitution was ratified and the new Union was formed, this was how the Supreme Court understood its significance:

In America, every State in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude and precision. The federal government as well. What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are Legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution: It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void….. [Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorance(1795)]

The Law of the Land is the Constitution of the United States. And this Constitution of ours has a fixed and permanent meaning. All a justice or a judge has to do is consult those original authorities. (But they rarely ever do so, if ever). The meaning is fixed in the Federalist Papers (which Thomas Jefferson called the “best commentary on the Constitution ever written”) and in the debates of the state ratifying conventions. The meaning and intent of the Constitution as understood by each of the States when they ratified it is the PROPER and LEGAL MEANING of the Constitution. Except for the amendment process, which is the only legal way to alter or amend the meaning of the Constitution in order to reflect the changing demands of the people, there is no authority by the federal court system to re-interpret the Constitution from its original meaning. There is only one justice on the Supreme Court now who gets this (Justice Clarence Thomas). Maybe Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, also understands this. We once thought that Chief Justice John Roberts was a conservative and would abide by this principle. All the others are progressive and believe the Constitution is a piece of wax, to be molded by the times, the circumstances, the exigencies of government, and the changing norms. They believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” which means it has no fixed meaning and hence can be altered and re-interpreted at the bench.

Indeed, the Law of the Land is the Constitution of the United States… a document written simply enough for every American to understand for himself that it means. If it protects our essential rights and establishes a limited government, wouldn’t you expect that document to be easily understandable by the People? Otherwise, what good is it? If you always needed a lawyer or some other brainiac to read it to you and explain it to you, how can you ever be sure he is being truthful? And perhaps one of the greatest provisions in the Constitution is the Tenth Amendment. It is the great anchor – or as I like to call it, the “Lead Weight” – that restrains government. Government loves to cite the Supremacy Clause to bolster its laws and policies, but it never cites the Tenth Amendment. Both are equally dynamic provisions of the US Constitution; both define the scope and force of the government. The Supremacy Clause pushes against the States while the Tenth pushes against the federal government. While the government can rightfully claim as its supreme authority, the States can equally claim as ITS supreme authority.

So what DOES the Constitution say? The phrase “the right to vote” appears for the first time in Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation “when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in July 1868, has been criticized by several historians and students of the Constitution as having been unconstitutionally passed by Congress and illegitimately ratified by the federal government. In other words, it’s passage in Congress and adoption by the States did not meet constitutional requirements (as well as can be challenged under contract theories; coercion nullifies an agreement).

The section talks about the penalty for withholding the ballot but nowhere in the Constitution does it provide that every citizen necessarily has the right to vote. It is nowhere in the Bill of Rights. The Fifteenth Amendment, on the other hand, which was passed two years later in 1870, does speak specifically of “the right to vote.” The Fifteenth Amendment reads: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

This particular phrase, “the right to vote of citizens of the United States,” appears again two more times, each connected with a protection from abridgement. The Nineteenth Amendment provides that the “right to vote of citizens of the United States” will not be abridged on account of gender (suffrage) and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment provides that the “right to vote of citizens of the United States” will not be abridged on account of age (18 years or older). With the amendments come a cause of action to be adjudicated and enforced by both courts and Congress. The fact that the Constitution had to ADD these amendments – to protect the “right” to vote from discrimination based on race, gender and age implies there is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution. Explicit rights, like those in the Bill of Rights, apply to all citizens regardless of any differences.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution provides for the “Times, Places, and Manner of Holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” This provision allows for the popular election of senators and representatives. According to Section 4, the States have the power to prescribe such conditions (time, place, and manner), although Congress may, at any time, alter such regulations. In fact, Congress did so in 1945. By statute, it mandated a uniform date for presidential (3 U.S.C. § 1) and congressional (2 U.S.C. § 1 and 2 U.S.C. § 7) elections – the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. Article I says nothing about the right to vote. Article I says nothing about early voting, Sunday voting, or any other extension of the period to cast a vote.

Article II, Section 1 provides for the election of Electors, which will be responsible for the selection of president. “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled to in the Congress….. The Electors shall meet in their respective States [and vote for President and Vice President].” Article II says nothing about Congress having any power to regulate the process of choosing electors, except that it may determine the time of choosing the Electors and the Day on which they must render their votes. The Constitution, however, says nothing about the right of citizens to vote for President. QUESTION: Does this mean that the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments’ protections of the right to vote apply only to the selection of senators and representatives? This is perhaps a question for another day and another article.

Looking at just the US Constitution, then, there would appear to be no fundamental right to vote thus requiring the government to scrutinize the process so intently. On the other hand, there is an explicit right to vote provided in virtually every state constitution. The exercise of the right to vote therefore a state matter. That is to say, states cannot deny citizens the right to vote, but they can regulate the process to address issues they believe are important. Voting laws are the rightful exercise of state government power. And this probably makes sense since it was understood from our Founders that there could be reasonable restrictions on the right to vote. In earlier days, the right to vote was limited to those who had property, for example. If the government could come after you and seize, tax, or regulate your property, then it was believed there should be “skin in the game.” There could be residency requirements and even reasonable literacy tests in order to make sure that a person had a modicum of understanding in order to vote. [The Supreme Court has continued to acknowledge that literacy tests in general are constitutional (under the States’ police powers), but Congress can prohibit them, under the Voting Rights Act, if they are used to intentionally discriminate against minorities]. The Supreme Court holds that under the Constitution, only the States have the right to set voter qualifications. In the grand scheme of things, the right to vote would seem to be a “privilege” – an incident of citizenship. Essential rights (historically-held individual rights) are those that are held to be inherent in one’s humanity. They are rights that do not come from government. That is why governments are prohibited from taking them away, and that is why the Declaration articulates that the primary role of government is to protect them for every individual. These are the liberty interests protected in the Bill of Rights. We see no restrictions like photo ID (upheld by the Supreme Court), literacy tests, residency requirements, etc on our rights of Speech, Press, our right to counsel, due process, etc. Privileges, on the other hand, are not inherent in our humanity but derive from society. Our society, in particular, is designed as a representative democracy which implies that individuals will select the representatives to government on their behalf. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the Constitution doesn’t embrace the notion that individuals have a say in the selection of president. And from Article I, it seems clear that States have the inherent right and power to regulate elections for Congress. As such, it would seem then that they have the right to regulate voting and elections in a neutral and reasonable manner for the “benefit of an ordered society” and to meet state interests.

With respect to Article I, the US Congress has not passed any law requiring an early voting period. It is up to each individual State. This is important in looking at our North Carolina Voter ID law and exactly WHAT citizens are entitled to when it comes to their right to vote and their exercise of that right. The States have historically enjoyed the power to regulate voting and regulate their elections as they see fit; it comes under their general Police Powers covered and protected by the Tenth Amendment. In fact, up until 1991, the election of president and members of Congress was essentially held on only one day – Election Day. My guess is that most state constitutions only guarantee one day of voting. North Carolina’s state constitution only guarantees one day of voting.

Many states have had some degree of early voting for a long time, and that “early voting” was typically allowing the casting of “absentee” votes in a county clerk’s office shortly before election day. But in the 1990’s, several states moved to adopt early voting in a significant way. Texas, which began to use early voting in selected elections and counties in the late 1980’s, expanded its use in the 1990’s. Oklahoma adopted early voting in 1991 and Tennessee, New Mexico, and Nevada in 1994. A number of states adopted early voting after the 2000 election and have continued the practice in subsequent elections. Among them are Arkansas, North Carolina, and West Virginia, which have high rates of early voting and low rates of absentee voting, and Florida, which has high rates of both. Texas and Tennessee have the highest rates of early voting. Along with Nevada, they reported over 40% in 2004. Arkansas, New Mexico, and North Carolina reported over 25 percent and Florida and Colorado almost 20%. A number of states, including Illinois and Maryland, enacted legislation to allow early voting in 2006.

While States have noted the benefits of Early Voting (enlarging access to the ballot box and making it easier for certain folks to vote), some have noted the drawbacks – the greater opportunity for fraud. Since the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida, paranoia about the integrity of the U.S. election system has increased. A Pew Research Center survey found that 48% of Americans were confident that “the votes across the country were accurately counted” in the 2004 election. In subsequent elections, confidence would be further eroded. Indeed, after the 2012 election, only 31% of Americans nationwide had confidence in the process. 69% felt the process was corrupted and the outcomes not necessarily trustworthy. There was a perception that people were not taking the process seriously. There was a fear of votes being stolen or being rendered meaningless because of voter fraud. Even if evidence of actual ballot tampering and voter fraud was not made public, the fear was still there.

It wasn’t just the States that were concerned about fraud. In 2005, the Commission on Federal Election Reform (aka the Carter-Baker Commission) made a bipartisan recommendation for voter identification at the polls because of the growing lack of confidence in integrity of the voting process. Even the government acknowledged a legitimate state interest in ensuring and protecting the integrity in the voting process.

Ever since Americans have lost faith in the integrity of the election process and the honesty of the voting process, voter identification has become an important provision in most state voting laws. Many states have opted for some form of photo ID provision, although some states have included other forms of identification that will serve as well. In these laws, there are procedures for when a voter does not have identification: If a voter fails to show the ID that is asked for by law, states provide alternatives and these alternatives fit into two categories – non-strict and strict.

Voter ID laws that are “non-strict” provide at least some voters who lack acceptable identification when they show up to vote to have an opportunity to cast a ballot that will be counted without further action on the part of the voter. For instance, a voter may sign an affidavit of identity, or poll workers may be permitted to vouch for the voter. In some of the “non-strict” states (Colorado, Florida, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont), voters who do not show required identification may vote on a provisional ballot. After the close of Election Day, election officials will determine (via a signature check or other verification) whether the voter was eligible and registered, and therefore whether the provisional ballot should be counted. No action on the part of the voter is required. In New Hampshire, election officials will send a letter to anyone who signed a challenged voter affidavit because they did not show an ID, and these voters must return the mailing, confirming that they are indeed in residence as indicated on the affidavit.

With “strict” Voter ID laws, on the other hand, voters without acceptable identification must vote on a provisional ballot and also take additional steps after Election Day for it to be counted. For instance, the voter may be required to return to an election office within a few days after the election and present an acceptable ID to have the provisional ballot counted. If the voter does not come back to show ID, the provisional ballot is not counted.

While states wanted to enact laws to safeguard the integrity of the voting process, many were already walking a narrow line with the federal government on account of their history of past discrimination against African-Americans. They understood that if their laws were challenged, and challenged as being discriminatory, they would surely see them struck down under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The key provision of the Voting Rights Act – Title IV – identified nine Southern States along with specific districts in other states (including almost all of the districts in NC) as having a history of intentional discriminating against African-Americans and disenfranchising them in their right to vote. Consequently, these states and districts were required to submit their voting laws and voting practices, including voter ID laws, redistricting, and even the moving of polling locations with the US Justice Department for pre-clearance. In other words, if the US DOJ found that any voting law, redistricting plan, or movement of polling location evidenced a plan to discriminate against African-Americans, then the law or plan would be struck down under Title IV.

But in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Title IV in the case Shelby v. Holder as being outdated. In writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts relied on data which showed that the US government was using outdated information, going back over 40 years, to continue to claim racial discrimination in those states. Roberts wrote that the system is based on “40-year-old facts that have no logical relationship to the present day.” He continued by writing that the government can no longer continue singling out certain states by relying on the past.

The Court argued that an extraordinary corrective is no longer needed when the problem ceases to exist.

In writing the decision, Chief Justice Roberts also relied on comparison data to show that when the Voting Rights Act was enacted, only 6% of African-Americans were registered to vote in Mississippi, a state noted for its civil rights violations. In the 2004 election, African-American voter registration was 76% in Mississippi, almost four percentage points higher than the white registration rate. In the 2012 election, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “African-American voter turn-out exceeded white voter turn-out in five of the six states covered by the pre-clearance requirement.” With Title IV invalidated, the meat of the Voting Rights Act is gone. Title V is really meaningless without Title IV, and many lawyers believe that it will be struck down soon as well.

“The Selma of 1965 and the Selma of 2016 are very different places. When it comes to the franchise, this is in no small part because the Voting Rights Act did what it was supposed to do: namely, eliminate the scurrilous “tests and devices” (such as literacy tests) used to keep certain groups of voters from the ballot box. Liberals should be cheering the fact that we are no longer in need of the most aggressive provisions of the Voting Rights Act.” [“North Carolina’s Voter ID Law Should be Restored,” The National Review, 2016]

THE NC VOTER ID LAW –

In 2010, the North Carolina witnessed a historic election for its state government. For the first time since the 1800’s, the people of the state elected a Republican majority. One of the popular mandates of that election was that the newly-elected representatives would deliver on a promise to enact a common-sense Voter ID law to ensure voter integrity. For years, it appeared that the legislature was stalling on its promise.

What the legislature was doing was trying to draft a law that would survive Title IV scrutiny. It was consulting with attorneys to navigate the area of Voter ID laws and the Voting Rights Act.

But after the 2013 Shelby decision, the NC legislature decided to alter its earlier voter law to make it harder to commit voter fraud or to engage in any improper voting schemes. North Carolina took very seriously the constitutional standard of “One Person, One Vote.” And so, in 2013, the legislature enacted HB 589, the NC Voter ID law. It essentially altered the state’s earlier voting law by adding a photo ID requirement and five provisions which either restrict the early voting period or restrict registration. The law was considered a “strict” voter ID law.

Under the NC Voter ID law, every person voting in person must present a photo identification, except for a registered voter voting curbside (other options for identification are available) and for a registered voter who has a sincerely held religious objection to being photographed (that person must have filed a declaration with the local Board of Elections at least 25 days before the election]. The original law (2013) provided that any voter who did not comply with the photo ID requirement would be permitted to vote by provisional ballot but that vote would not count unless that person showed up in person at the Board of Elections office by noon on the day prior to the convening of the election canvassing with a valid ID. (The ID requirement would end up being softened, as will soon be explained).

Now, after the Shelby decision and after having lawyers review the language of its Voter ID law to make sure it passes constitutional muster, the NC legislators were pretty confident that they had enacted something that would bring honesty and integrity back to the state’s voting process. They had done their due diligence. A voter ID requirement in fact had been upheld by the US Supreme Court as a reasonable limitation on a person’s exercise of voting rights.

In 2005, Indiana passed a strict Voter ID law. It was the most restrictive voter law at the time. The strict photo identification requirement in order to cast a vote was challenged as being an unreasonable burden on the right to vote and that challenge made its way to the Supreme Court in 2008. [Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, (2008)]. Civil rights groups (including ACORN), the Women’s League of Voters, and other groups filed amici briefs challenging the constitutionality of the ID requirement. After concluding that no voter would conceivably be precluded from voting under the law, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana’s legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state’s interest in reducing fraud. He opined: “Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons-e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate-is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.”

Justice Scalia wrote separately in a concurring opinion: “The law should be upheld because the overall burden is minimal and justified.” He went on to state that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation. “It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class,” he wrote.

In addition to the challenge that the strict ID requirement was an unreasonable burden on the right to vote, civil rights groups alleged that the requirement benefited Republicans and harmed Democrats at the ballot box (because Democrats include more poor people and minorities). Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy, disregarded that argument and wrote: “The justifications for the law should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.”

What exactly does the Indiana Voter ID law require of each voter when he or she shows up to vote? This is important because according to the Supreme Court, the ID requirement is NOT an unreasonable limitation on the right to vote. The Supreme Court did not say it was not an unreasonable limitation on the right to vote for a WHITE person. The Court held that the limitation was not an unreasonable limitation on any person’s right to vote.

Under the Indiana Voter ID law, voters MUST have a specific form of ID in order to vote. The ID must be issued by the state of Indiana or the U.S. government and must show the following:

• Name of individual to whom it was issued, which must conform to the individual’s registration record

• Photo of the person to whom it was issued

• Expiration date (if it is expired, it must have an expiration date after the most recent general election; military IDs are exempted from the requirement that ID bear an expiration date)

Voters in Indiana who are unable to or decline to produce such an identification may vote a provisional ballot. The ballot is counted only if: (1) the voter returns to the election board by noon on the Monday after the election and: (A) produces proof of identification; or (B) executes an affidavit stating that the voter cannot obtain proof of identification, because the voter: (i) is indigent; or (ii) has a religious objection to being photographed; and (2) the voter has not been challenged or required to vote a provisional ballot for any other reason. [Indiana statute §3-5-2-40.5, 3-10-1-7.2 and 3-11-8-25.1]

It should be noted that Indiana is racked with voter fraud. Just last week, on October 6, a massive voter fraud scheme was discovered. Democrats and unions were found to be paying people to go vote in Illinois. [And Democrats, minorities, the US DOJ, and the federal courts still like to insist that voter fraud is imaginary and unsubstantiated].

In 2014-2015, the NC chapter of the NAACP, other civil rights groups, and the US Department of Justice challenged the NC Voter ID law (HB 589) as being discriminatory against African-Americans. The challengers alleged that the NC legislature (Republican majority) selectively chose voter-ID requirements, reduced the number of early-voting days, and changed registration procedures in ways meant to harm blacks, who overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party. The specific provisions that were challenged were:

(i) Photo ID

(ii) Elimination of the first week of Early Voting (cutting down the total number of early voting days from 16 to 10)

(iii) Elimination of one of the two Sunday voting days (“Souls to the Polls”)

(iv) Elimination of Same-day registration

(v) Elimination of provisional votes (including out-of-precinct votes)

(vi) Elimination of Pre-registration (permitting 16 and 17-yr-olds, when obtaining a driver’s license, to indicate their intent to vote)

In anticipation of the lawsuit and almost on the eve of the start of the trial (federal district court, Winston-Salem), the legislature met in session to quickly amend the strict ID requirement. The Voter ID bill was amended it to provide more relaxed options to those who show up to vote without a photo ID. Under the amended NC Voter ID law, voters who lack a photo ID (those who claim they cannot obtain one) would be able to cast a ballot after providing their birthdates, the last four digits of their Social Security number, and an affidavit stating that there is a “reasonable impediment” to their ability to present a photo ID. As a result of the “relaxed” ID requirement, the NC voter ID law was reclassified as a “non-strict” voter ID law.

The trial, which began in July 2015 and concluded in January 2016 (the provisions were addressed in two separate phases) vindicated the NC General Assembly. The federal district court upheld the provisions, including the relaxed photo ID requirement. Although Reverend Barber characterized the bill as a return to Jim Crow, Judge Schroeder did not agree. He sided with the position advanced by Governor Pat McCrory: “The history of North Carolina is not on trial here.” Judge Thomas Schroeder wrote: “There is significant, shameful past discrimination. In North Carolina’s recent history, however, certainly for the last quarter century, there has been little official discrimination to consider.”

In upholding the NC Voter ID bill, Judge Schroeder wrote: “North Carolina has addressed legitimate state interests with its voter identification requirement and electoral system. The provisions of the bill are consistent with the mainstream of other states.”

Barber, the US Department of Justice, other civil rights groups, and other appellants quickly filed an appeal to the US District Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (which covers appeals from district courts in NC, SC, VA, MD, and WV, and is situated in Richmond, VA). They continued their racial claim against the NC legislature, alleging that by eliminating tools that make it easier for everyone to vote, they really did so to harm African-Americans in their ability to get out to vote since those tools particularly benefitted that minority group. This past July, the 4th Circuit reversed the decision of the lower federal court, sided with the civil rights groups, and struck down all the provisions that were challenged.

The Supreme Court, the highest federal court of the land, upheld a strict Photo ID law (strict photo ID requirement to vote) in Indiana, concluding that it was not an unreasonable limitation or burden on the right to vote. North Carolina’s Voter ID law, however, which is a “non-strict Photo ID” law, was struck down by the same federal court system. I don’t understand.

In fact, the federal courts are all over the place with respect to strict voter identification laws. (Which makes it very likely that the Supreme Court will have to agree to hear another such case). While the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot single states out based on its prior history of discrimination, the federal courts are continuing to do just that. The official proclamations say one thing but in practice, the justices continue as if the Shelby decision was never handed down. For example, on March 23, 2015, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Wisconsin’s strict voter ID law. Wisconsin’s law absolutely requires that a photo identification be shown before a voter is allowed to cast a ballot. The law is now in effect. In 2011, Texas’ strict photo ID provision was struck down as violating the Voting Rights Act and Arkansas’s strict voter ID law was struck down as well.

DECISION OF THE 4th CIRCUIT —

The US Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals represent the federal appellate court system. There are 12 such Courts of Appeals to serve the 12 federal appellate jurisdictions (aka, 12 federal circuits). North Carolina is covered by 4th Circuit. Appellate courts do not hear a case in the first instance; that is, they are not the trial court and do not listen to or sift through the evidence. Instead, they hear a case on appeal, addressing errors of law (specifically, errors in the application of law to the facts). An appeal to a Circuit Court of Appeals is heard by a panel of 3 judges. And an opinion is issued by either 2 or 3 of those judges. That’s it. Agreement among 2 or 3 judges… that’s what constitutes a judicial “opinion” by the federal judiciary at the appellate level. In most instances, since the Supreme Court will only agree to review a very small fraction of their opinions, the opinion of this judicial “majority” will be the law of the land for the particular judicial district. I find this astounding and frankly, I find it disturbing and unacceptable.

While the district court heard the evidence and weighed the legitimate interests of the state versus the possible burden to African-American voters, and concluded that law was a reasonable exercise of legislative power and discretion and in fact, was consistent with other laws which have been upheld by higher courts. A different court, the 4th Circuit, concluded just the opposite. It completely dismissed the legitimate state interests (in addressing voter fraud), accused the legislature of using voter fraud as a mere pretext for intentionally targeting African-Americans and making it harder for them to get out and vote. Two different courts, two radically different conclusions. One listened to testimony and addressed the evidence first hand, the other did not. One was willing to defer to the wisdom and judgement of a legislature duly elected by the people of the state who, with their votes, sent a mandate for voter reform. The other was too willing to dismiss that wisdom and judgement and substitute its own.

What this sounds like to me is a case of different judges bringing different politics and different ideology to the bench and using them to guide their decision rather than simple rules of statutory and constitutional construction.

The opinion of the 4th Circuit, to say the very least, was a very disturbing one. In my opinion, in the 21st century, there is no place for an opinion as racially charged as this one. There has been absolutely no evidence that there is any de jure discrimination against African-Americans in the state of North Carolina to warrant such accusations.

Let’s consider just how insane the opinion of the 4th Circuit is. First of all, in writing the opinion for the court, Judge Motz concluded: “After years of preclearance [that would be Title V of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed to remedy the effects of Jim Crow and the poll taxes and literacy tests that were used in certain southern states to keep African-Americans away from the polls], by 2013 African-Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. [The fact that an African-American was running for president was a major factor in energizing them to vote; this was not mentioned by the Court]. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2103), eliminating pre-clearance obligations[striking down Title IV], a leader of the party that newly-dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African-American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an omnibus election law. [The Court was not correct here. The Republicans have dominated the legislature since 2008, when an election mandate sent a clear message that Democratic policies were no longer to be tolerated. Furthermore, the Republican Party has long been the political party that has enjoyed African-American support; in fact, from 1860-1964, the Republican Party has been the ONLY party to recognize and fight for the civil rights of African-Americans]. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African-Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. [The court did not consider voter fraud to be a legitimate justification and in fact, the trial court before it heard no evidence of the enormity of actual voter fraud here in our state]. Although the new provisions target African-Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. [Again, the court substituting its judgement and its knowledge of what goes on here in NC, not believing that voter fraud is a legitimate problem]. Thus, the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. In essence, the State took away minority voters’ opportunity because they were about to exercise it. This bears the mark of intentional discrimination.”

** Note that the opinion is in italics. MY comments are added in brackets and are highlighted.

The OPINION of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals states, in spirit and effect, that African-Americans are entitled to special guarantees when it comes to their exercise of the right to vote. It states that while restrictions and limitations are indeed allowable and even constitutional, and while they are not an unreasonable burden to white Americans or even to Hispanic Americans, they are not permissible for African-Americans. That is exactly what the decision states. By holding one race to lower standards of compliance, I would venture to say that the opinion is racist. And by implying that a State MUST hold that race to lower standards, it is forcing racism in its law-making. What the decision also states, and what I find also extremely disturbing, is that while the legislature has a legitimate and important state interest at hand and is willing to enact a neutral piece of legislation to address it, just because a group of justices can be convinced by a minority group that it was enacted with an intent to discriminate, the justices puts the opinion of the majority group over the legitimate interests of a state governing body. In other words, the justices can willy-nilly substitute their opinion for the collective decision of a duly-enacted state legislature, vested with the right and authority to legislate on the very issue.

The court’s legal reasoning is not exactly sound. The notion that rolling back same-day registration or shortening early-voting periods is unconstitutional is absolutely absurd. Early voting began in 1988, and thirteen states still do not have it, while same-day registration is still not available in some three dozen states. Are all of these jurisdictions in violation of the Constitution? In North Carolina, citizens – ALL citizens – were only given one day to vote… Election Day until the late 1990’s. Was North Carolina violating the Constitution?

I find it interesting that as the 4th Circuit addressed the photo ID provision of the NC Voter ID law, the judges ended up engaging in their own racial stereotyping of African-Americans. Actually, they merely endorsed the inherent racial stereotyping of Reverend Barber, the NC NAACP, other civil rights groups, and even the US Justice Department. It was the testimony of Justice Department officials who explained that “black voters would be hurt by North Carolina’s law” because they are “less sophisticated” than their white counterparts. There was no mention by these civil rights groups, or the US DOJ or the 4th Circuit, as to whether the “unsophistication” also prevents them from taking advantage of the provisions whereby the state provides a free ID to anyone who doesn’t already have one AND that citizens can still vote even without an ID if they sign a form at the polling place asserting that there was a “reasonable impediment” that kept them from getting the free ID.

Indiana’s ID requirement, stricter than North Carolina’s, was upheld as reasonable. And an almost identical ID law in South Carolina with the “reasonable impediment” exception was upheld as non-discriminatory by a three-judge federal court in 2013. Georgia’s Voter ID law was upheld in 2008 and a challenge to Indiana’s law failed. Without a doubt, there is strong and broad popular support for voter-ID laws (except by the Democratic establishment). A 2012 Washington Post poll recorded support among nearly two-thirds of blacks and Latinos. In June 2015, 76% of respondents, including 58% of self-identified Democrats, supported voter-ID laws.

Why does race continue to frustrate common-sense legislation?

As the National Review wrote: “The Fourth Circuit went out of its way to ignore evidence, impugn the motives of North Carolina’s legislature, and concoct specious legal rationales to forward a political agenda.”

Nowhere does the Constitution say that African-Americans are ENTITLED to a DIFFERENT set of standards, are ENTITLED to AN EXTRA WEEK of Early Voting, or are ENTITLED to SUNDAY VOTING. These are just SOME of the provisions of the NC Voter ID Law that the 4th Circuit held to be intentionally discriminatory against African-Americans. The 4th Circuit held that the Voter ID law evidences an INTENTIONAL DESIGN and an DISCRIMINATORY INTENT by the North Carolina legislature to deny African-Americans their right to vote, likening them to the Southern Democrats of the 1860’s thru the 1960’s who used poll taxes, literacy tests, scare tactics, and force to prevent African-Americans from voting. If I were the NC legislature, I would sue the 4th Circuit for slander and libel. The Voter ID law passed in Indiana was a “strict photo ID” law (stricter than North Carolina’s law) and it went before the Supreme Court in 2008. In an opinion authored by the most liberal member of the Court at the time, the Supreme Court found that a Photo ID requirement was NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN to ANY citizen. In fact, just a few years earlier, a federal government committee looking into the election process took a number of polls and found that only 31% of Americans had confidence in the integrity of the election process. In other words, 69% of Americans believed that our election process is corrupt and racked with fraud. With that finding, states began enacting voter ID laws, some requiring a photo ID. Indiana was one and so was Texas. it was this law that went to the Supreme Court. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION – and I wish I could ask this directly to the judges of the 4th Circuit: If a strict Photo ID requirement (in Indiana’s Law) was found by a LIBERAL Supreme Court to be a permissible and constitutional condition on the exercise to vote and found NOT TO BE AN “UNREASONABLE” BURDEN on ANYONE, how is it that a lesser federal court can find that a photo ID requirement in NC’s law, which is not as strict as Indiana’s, is unconstitutional?? How is it that the LIBERAL Supreme Court can find that a strict Photo ID requirement (in Indiana’s Law) is a permissible and constitutional condition on one’s exercise to vote and is NOT an unreasonable burden on ANYONE but a lesser federal court can find that the photo ID requirement in NC’s law, which is not as strict as Indiana’s, is an unreasonable burden on AFRICAN-AMERICANS? No other minority group was found to be burdened.

All this talk is about what provisions African-Americans are specifically entitled in order to secure and protect their right to vote. But where is the talk about the security and protection of everyone’s vote against voter fraud? Shouldn’t a constitution that provides for “One Person, One Vote” also provide for protection of individuals in their right to vote from dilution due to voter fraud?

If there is a legitimate state interest that the law addresses, the mere fact that a minority group can show that it burdens them (which is questionable at most, and highly exaggerated at the very least) should not undermine and invalidate the fact that such an important interest is being served. After all, minority groups (and one in particular) will always claim special circumstances so as to frustrate common-sense laws and cry “discrimination” and most often so when it benefits the agenda of a political party. For many years, the Democratic Party has been able to brainwash this group of minorities into believing that it alone will address their concerns. Aside from enlarged welfare and entitlement programs and continuing to convince them that they are victimized by white society and discriminated against in every aspect of society, all of which, in sum total, leaves them believing that they are a disadvantaged class, the Democratic Party has done very little for these individuals. Most live in “comfortable poverty,” live in inner-cities or poor areas of town, find it increasingly difficult to find jobs (in part because they opt for welfare, choose to treat education lightly, have children outside of wedlock, or because the Democratic Party encourages open immigration of Hispanics who eagerly work but work jobs that take away most of the opportunities for African-Americans), and suffer from the effects of an ever-growing erosion of the black family. All these realities for the “disadvantaged” African-American have been created by years and years of Democratic law-making and policy-making.

This particular minority group alleges many reasons why it is different from other groups and other members of society… its members are poorer, less educated, have weaker family structure, poorer health, heavier and less able to move, less likely to have cars to get around, more illiterate, and the list goes on and on. With a list like that, how can any law not be disparately burdensome to them.

A photo ID is too burdensome for African-Americans, according to agents (judges) of the federal government. In fact, it rises to the level of outright discrimination. As the court explained, it’s just too hard for African-Americans to get the most common kind of photo ID – the one issued by the DMV. “African-Americans disproportionately lack the most common kind of photo ID… They are disproportionately likely to move, be poor, be less-educated, have less access to transportation, and experience poor health.” Yet it appears that in order to collect a check when you are poor and to pick up medication at the pharmacy, one needs a photo ID. At least, I’ve always been required to show an ID to cash a check, write a check, and to pick up medication for myself or any of my children. According to the court’s reasoning, the mere fact that such a requirement is included in a law, knowing that African-Americans are so lacking in several key areas of functionality in society, automatically makes that provision an act of intentional discrimination against them.

Hence, we’re back to two sets of standards; One set of provisions applies just fine to every person in the North Carolina, except African-Americans. And a different set of provisions applies to African-Americans. Hmmmm, sounds like we are back to Jim Crow, except that now it’s sponsored by the federal government. And while the first era was motivated by the Democrats and Southern Democrats believe that blacks are inherently inferior to whites and shouldn’t co-mingle, the current era is motivated by the government’s belief that blacks are less capable of doing for themselves and functioning in society at the same level as other races. It’s intentional racism either way.

So I guess it means that African-Americans don’t need a photo ID to collect a welfare check. That’s just too discriminatory. Let the rampant welfare fraud ensue. At that point, I will willfully withhold my federal income tax and encourage others to do so as well. Because I work hard for my paycheck, I at least make sure to spend my money carefully and take precautions against identify fraud. I guess African-Americans don’t need a photo ID to get a gun. That’s just too discriminatory. Already, too many guns are landing in the hands of African-Americans unlawfully. Nationally, blacks commit shootings at a rate of 11% more than whites. In New York City, blacks make up 23% of the population and whites makes up 33% of the population, yet blacks commit 75% of the shootings while whites commit only 3%. If blacks were represented at 33% of the population in NYC, like whites, then they would account for 107.6% of shootings. That would mean that in NYC, blacks commit 35 times as many shootings as whites. Across the East River from Manhattan (NYC), in Brooklyn, there are two neighboring communities. There is the predominantly black community of Brownsville and the predominantly white and Asian community of Bay Ridge. There are 81% more shootings in Brownsville than Bay Ridge. [Bill Whittle discusses the facts obscured by the Black Lives Matter movement – https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004657054354&fref=ts%5D

Can you imagine if we applied the same standard and same rationale to gun purchases as our courts are applying to the NC photo ID requirement in its Voter ID law – that is, that it is discriminatory to require blacks to show a photo ID when applying for and purchasing a gun? Would that be insanity? But you can’t hold one standard for voting and another for requiring a photo ID for the exercise of any other right or privilege of citizenship in the United States.

Again, a “strict” photo ID requirement was challenged in the Indiana Voter ID law as an undue burden and an unreasonable restriction on the right to vote and the US Supreme Court said NO IT’S NOT! The NC ID law, which is less stringent than the Indiana law and is more relaxed than the Indiana law when it comes to those persons who can’t get a photo ID was challenged as “Racist.” And because it was challenged as Racist rather than Burdensome, apparently the federal court used a different standard. What is “reasonable and not an undue burden” to all citizens in Indiana (including blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc), apparently is a burden only to African-Americans in North Carolina. It makes no sense at all. Truly, the term “racism” obscures the real meaning of the one term that blacks valued so much in the past — “Equal Protection.” Racism now is a term used to get “special” treatment and “special” protection. It’s a mockery of our Constitution and our laws.

The assertion that really enraged me in the opinion was when Judge Motz wrote: “The asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. In essence, the State took away minority voters’ opportunity because they were about to exercise it. This bears the mark of intentional discrimination.”

Judge Motz talked about intentional discrimination, but what he was really outraged about was the fact that the restrictions might (and no one actually believes it will happen) prevent African-Americans from turning out at the polls to support the Democratic Party. The panel was concerned that the Democratic Party might somehow be harmed by the Voter ID bill – not that African-Americans are somehow overly burdened by its provisions. That’s why the panel talked about the legislature in terms of a political party (“the party that newly-dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African-American support”) and then talked about African-Americans in terms of a political party (acknowledging that they don’t support the party that newly-dominates the legislature). Because politics is really the motivation behind the 4th Circuit’s opinion, and because the judges ignored legal precedent (the Crawford v. Marion County decision), the opinion should be ignored. Moreso, the Supreme Court should have noticed this error and agreed to reverse the decision. The part of the Crawford opinion I am referring to, of course, is this statement: “The justifications for the law should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.” This statement was the joint opinion of both liberal and conservative members of the Supreme Court – Stevens, being a strong liberal, and Scalia, being a strong conservative.

The opinion of the 4th Circuit is extremely troubling for another reason, and I touched on it earlier. The federal judiciary – again, a branch of the federal government – is clearly attempting to influence and burden states (and particularly those who had discriminated against African-Americans in their right to vote many, many years ago and which, according to the Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder, 2013, were no longer to be prejudiced or bound by past discrimination in the eyes of government or the courts) by telling them that they MUST enlarge opportunities for African-Americans to exercise their right to vote. It is a very racial decision. Against the judgment of the Supreme Court, courts like the 4th Circuit appear to continue with the automatic presumption that the South continues to racially discriminate and that it is their job, and the job of the federal government, to sift through their laws, pull away the veil of equal-treatment, and find the embedded racism. And since when does the federal government have the authority to dictate how States should conduct their affairs under their traditional police powers (powers reserved under the Tenth Amendment)? Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has said the government cannot do so.

With the opinion by Judge Motz, we are left with the question, which is a very constitutional one: “What are voters actually entitled to when it comes to early voting and opportunities to register?” And what are African-Americans specifically entitled to, above and beyond what are offered to persons of other races?

The States and We the People ourselves must free ourselves from the mindset that federal judges have the absolute wisdom and integrity to declare what the law is and interpret what the Constitution means. Two or three ambitious, “politically-appointed” and “politically-motivated” judges do NOT authoritatively say what the law is. THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF DEFINES WHAT THE LAW. And judges and the federal government cannot twist, mis-interpret, re-interpret, or ignore what it says. States are sovereign equivalents to the federal government, if not superior. Indeed, in most aspects of law-making, they have reserved powers which are beyond the reach of the federal government and are to be respected by the federal government. Yet, the federal government has a monopoly over the meaning, intent, and scope of the US Constitution and the scope of its powers – the powers belonging to all branches. Nowhere in that monopoly are the States represented as sovereigns. As mentioned earlier, the 17th amendment changed the election of Senators andMarbury v. Madison perfected the federal monopoly by vesting unconstitutional powers with the Supreme Court over interpretation and enforcement. The federal judiciary looks out only for the federal government so let’s not pretend that it is an impartial arbiter or umpire for the States. The States have no such umpire or agent at the judicial level – the final leg of the federal monopoly.

Federalism is dead until and unless the States decide that the doctrine must be revived and is important enough to be revived.

FINAL THOUGHTS –

For several years, the South indeed engaged in efforts to prevent freed blacks from voting. And the South paid dearly for that history. Because of that history, the federal government and the courts, through legislation and judicial decisions, adopted an automatic presumption that such States were engaging in actual discrimination and discriminatory intent. The scrutiny seemed reasonable in light of the history of abuse. In our current time, there is no discrimination in the right to vote (and certainly no state is required to go above and beyond to give every conceivable opportunity to vote). But what there is is a history of voter fraud, dubious and illegal get-out-the-vote initiatives, and voting schemes that is almost exclusively associated with the Democratic Party. In the weighing of interests when it comes to elections and election/voting integrity, the real presumption that should guide voter laws, government policy, and federal court judges is the one tending towards fraud and dishonesty, and the undermining of the principle “One Person, One Vote.”

In fact, I would go one step further… Rather than a government commission merely advising that States adopt voter identification laws, the government should ENCOURAGE them to do so. And when they pass such laws, the state legislature should be given the presumption that they were passed to counter potential voter fraud. I liken the Democrats’ attempts over the many years (through political collusion, union activity, mob activity, and questionable community-organizing groups such as ACORN) to elude, evade, ignore the voting laws on the books of the United States and in the several states to the attempts of the Southern Democrats many years ago to disenfranchise blacks by attempts to frustrate school segregation. Just as the conduct of Southern Democrats evidenced a deeply-entrenched scheme to disenfranchise blacks and to frustrate the policy of segregation by the Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education) and HAD TO BE REMEDIED by policies of affirmative action, racial quotas, bussing, and court-mandated redistricting plans (lasting over 50 years), I would argue that the schemes of the Democratic Party over the past many years have also evidenced such a deeply-entrenched and organized scheme to break the law and to violate the cherished standard of “One Person, One Vote” for citizens of the United States (as articulated by the US Constitution) to actually REQUIRE such a presumption in Voter ID laws.

The reality is, despite the claims of the left, racism is a thing of the past and voter fraud is the new form of discrimination. This is not an allegation but a reality. The Supreme Court could not find any claim of merit that a photo identification burdens an African-American under when a voter law provides an alternative for those who cannot obtain one (as North Carolina’s law does, and as Indiana’s law, the strictest in the nation, does). Yet day after day, year after year, we learn about documented and prosecutable cases of voter fraud. Ask former GOP senator Norm Coleman, whose 725-vote lead over Democratic challenger Al Franken in 2010 turned into a 312-vote victory for Franken — thanks in part to 1,099 votes cast by ineligible felons. In 2015, Philadelphia election judges arrested four electoral judges for casting fraudulent votes. Fake signatures helped place Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Indiana’s primary ballot in 2008. Incidents such as these are why lawmakers in more than 30 states have now enacted laws to protect the integrity of their elections. John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election on account of voter fraud, for crying out loud! Have we forgotten that?

In the words of James O’Keefe, founder of the Veritas Project, “Democrats will do anything they possibly can to skirt and break the law until they are caught.” As his organization has proven time and time again, by going into Democrat-controlled polling locations and interfacing with Democratic “get out the vote” initiatives

This election cycle, we have a presidential candidate who is who using unprecedented tools in order to steal the election. She is using arrogance and intimidation, shady back-door deals, illegal slush-funds, and tactics of voter fraud. She has colluded with enforcement agencies at the highest levels of government to evade prosecution for her lawless conduct and is currently colluding with the vast left-wing conspiracy known as the liberal media to essentially conduct her campaign why demonizing her opponent. The media shares with the American people only what it wants them to hear (pro-Clinton) while suppressing what it doesn’t want them to hear (the truth).

The NC General Assembly merely anticipated the fraud that would accompany this extremely important presidential election and enacted a common-sense Voter ID bill – a bill that the overwhelming numbers of NC voters demanded of their representatives.

Democracy is our greatest strength. It gives us the opportunity to have government work FOR us and to alter it when it works AGAINST us. And the constitutional principle of ‘one person, one vote’ has always been a vehicle for Americans to hold their government accountable, and ensure it is responsive to the challenges we face as a nation.

To conclude, I’d like to remind the reader of the options that our Governor, Pat McCrory, and our state legislature can take to provide reasonable and common-sense measures at polling places next month. These options are bold, for sure. And each option will allow us to get around the decision of the 4th Circuit… the dictates of a group of three progressive judges. But what is at stake is the integrity and fairness of the voting process here in our state and our rightful expectation of such. The constitutional bright-line rule of “One Person, One Vote” cannot be undermined. We already know that we can expect voter fraud (and some predict an extensive amount of it) because of the fact that our state is a key battleground state. It would be unconscionable to surrender our electoral votes on account of fraud simply because three judges refused to reject the outdated presumption that NC discriminates against its African-American citizens. Again, the seven options I am suggesting include: (1) Call the state legislature into an emergency session the week before early voting begins and pass another Voter ID law (making minor changes but still keeping the spirit of the law intact – requiring reliable identification to vote); (2) Ignore the opinion of the 4th Circuit, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal (just as the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to hear it), citing Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution as legal authority; (3) Ignore the OPINION of the 4th Circuit citing just that… it is only an opinion” and the state, in its equal ability to interpret the Constitution, does not agree; (4) Claim that the opinion directly calls each of the state legislators a “racist,” defames them as individuals and as a political and must be rejected as libelous and therefore illegal; (5) Claim that the opinion offends traditional notions of States Rights and under the Tenth Amendment, the state has the right and duty to defend its sphere of legitimate governing power, which includes common-sense voting laws; (6) Claim that the opinion is a clear violation of the Separation of Powers because the Court went out of its way to substitute its judicial opinion for the legislature’s rightful opinion as lawmakers and therefore illegitimate and unenforceable; or (7) Governor Pat McCrory should issue an Executive Order to all Boards of Election instructing them that a reliable identification is REQUIRED of all persons who show up to vote (and whoever cannot produce one must then-and-there, sign an affidavit and submit to having his or her photo taken).

References:

NC Voter ID Law (HB 589), passed April 2013 – http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H589v7.html

NC Voter ID modifications (HB 836), passed June 2015 – http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/PDF/H836v6.pdf (see pp. 5-11). Provides relaxed impediments for persons who do not comply with the photo ID requirement of HB 589. Any person who does not have a photo identification will be permitted to vote a provisional ballot (to be counted according to GS 163-182.1A). A person also can fill out a reasonable impediment declaration and vote a provisional ballot (to be counted according to GS 163-182.1B).

Opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (NAACP v. McCrory, 2016): http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Opinion72916.pdf

SilenceDoGood, Sept. 1, 2016. https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/nc-can-enforce-its-voter-id-law/

Indiana Voter ID Law – http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2401.htm

Indiana Voter ID law, Indiana Government, Indiana Election Division – http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2401.htm

Voter Identification Requirements – Voter ID Laws, ACSL (American Conference of State Legislatures), August 31, 2016. Referenced at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

Josh Siegel, “After Voter ID Defeats, Lessons From Indiana’s Law That ‘Has Stood Test of Time,’ The Daily Signal, August 7, 2016. Referenced at: http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/07/after-voter-id-defeats-lessons-from-indianas-law-that-has-stood-test-of-time/

Bill Whittle discusses the Myths perpetrated by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement – https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004657054354&fref=ts

Section 4 (Title IV) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-4-voting-rights-act

Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-4-voting-rights-act

List of counties in North Carolina originally identified in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act and subject to the preclearance requirements of Section 5 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jurisdictions_subject_to_the_special_provisions_of_the_Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

Section 5 (Title V) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

John C. Fortier, “Absentee and Early Voting,” AEI Press, June 2014. Referenced at: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/-absentee-and-early-voting_155531845547.pdf

“North Carolina’s Voter ID Law Should be Restored,” The National Review, August 9, 2016. Referenced at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438810/north-carolina-voter-id-law-should-be-restored

Massive Voter Fraud in NY – http://louderwithcrowder.com/voter-fraud-nyc-democratic-election-commissioner/

Voter Fraud (“Clinton Campaign: Whatever You Can Get Away With.. Just Do It!”) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI6bMbhsDE&feature=player_embedded

Voter Fraud Bombshell in NYC – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4XK8DGeWgU

Clinton Staffer on Tape Discussing Voter Fraud – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=167TgR5_DY4

Clinton Voter Fraud in Florida – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To1dp40LAu8

Thousands of Fraudulent Voter Ballots Marked for Hillary Clinton – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8on9JJLoU8

Largest Voter Fraud Investigation in Texas – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjbgJ7hLLRY

Indiana Voter Fraud Scheme investigation – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtJn3BJbg4

Voter Fraud in NC (thousands voted more than once in 2012, voting in NC and in at least one other state) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pUxFoNlI04

Evidence of Voter Fraud (scheme to dump thousands of ballots pre-marked for Hillary Clinton) on Election Day – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSg7DSkyjs

APPENDIX:

A. PROPOSED EXECUTIVE ORDER

[Drafted by Bart Goswick and referenced at: SilenceDoGood, Sept. 1, 2016. https://silencedogood2010.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/nc-can-enforce-its-voter-id-law/

Proposed Executive Order

From the Office of the Governor of the Great State of North Carolina – For Immediate Release

EXECUTIVE ORDER No. _____WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution plainly states that the federal judiciary has certain limitations on what it can, and cannot do. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states that any case in which a ‘State’, or any of its ‘Public Ministers’ is a party, the Supreme Court shall have ‘ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.’

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL Jurisdiction.”

WHEREAS, The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has clearly overstepped their authority, henceforth the North Carolina State Board of Elections, and all related agencies, shall consider this opinion by the court, issued on July 29, 2016, to be Null & Void. [http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf]

WHEREAS, The North Carolina Constitution, Article III, Section 5, Clause 10 states;

“…the Governor may make such changes in the allocation of offices and agencies and in the allocation of those functions, powers, and duties as he considers necessary for efficient administration. If those changes affect existing law, they shall be set forth in executive orders, …”

NOW, THEREFORE, by the power vested in me as Governor by the Constitution and laws of North Carolina, IT IS ORDERED:

The Great State of North Carolina will proceed with our November 2016 general elections according to the provisions and procedures defined in SESSION LAW 2013-381, aka “Voter Information Verification Act” that I signed into law on August 12, 2013. [http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H589v9.html]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina at the Capitol in the City of Raleigh, this ___ day of _______ in the year of our Lord two thousand and sixteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty.

B. COUNTIES (JURISDICTIONS) in NORTH CAROLINA ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED in SECTION 4(b) of the VOTING RIGHTS ACT FOR THE PRECLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5 –

(All of the following counties were identified in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, except as noted)
• Anson County
• Beaufort County
• Bertie County
• Bladen County
• Camden County
• Caswell County
• Chowan County
• Cleveland County
• Craven County
• Cumberland County
• Edgecombe County
• Franklin County
• Gaston County
• Gates County
• Granville County
• Greene County
• Guilford County
• Halifax County
• Harnett County
• Hertford County
• Hoke County
• Jackson County (added around 1984)
• Lee County
• Lenoir County
• Martin County
• Nash County
• Northampton County
• Onslow County
• Pasquotank County
• Perquimans County
• Person County
• Pitt County
• Robeson County
• Rockingham County
• Scotland County
• Union County
• Vance County
• Wake County (was bailed out around 1984, by court decision and hence no longer subject to the provision)
• Washington County
• Wayne County
• Wilson County

by Diane Rufino, October 27, 2016

Donald Trump should appeal to all those who identify as independent and who wish to break from the strict, disinterested, controlling 2-party system. All those who are fed up being controlled and railroaded by the self-interested 2-Party system should exercise their First Amendment right of protest by voting for Donald Trump!

On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry warned his fellow Virginia delegates (assembled in convention to consider the ratification of the US Constitution) that the constitution would eventually lead to an unfortunate transition from a confederacy (group of strong, sovereign states, which is what the States had wanted and intended) to a consolidated central government – one surely capable of tyranny and oppression. He said:

“It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. [The States] should not be inquiring how to improve trade or how Americans can become a more powerful people. The question the People [in their state conventions] should inquire about any government is how their liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government. Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else!

I am convinced the new government is fraught with many dangers. It will eventually and effectually oppress and ruin the people.”

Patrick Henry was perhaps our most liberty-minded Founding Father.  He was the conscience of our founding generation, ever reminding them of their right to be free and to be free from an overly ambitious government.  On the evening of March 23, 1775 in what is now called St. John’s Church in Richmond, he addressed members of a convention called to address the actions of the British against the colonies (particularly, against Massachusetts with the Intolerable Acts). He warned that the British were coming to confiscate their guns and ammunition and then would unleash the military on them. He spoke these inspiring words: “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?… Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The system of government and the corrupted 2-Party system that hold us hostage in this country and subjugate our interests to the interests of government are the very definition of TYRANNY and OPPRESSION. If we don’t use this opportunity to elect an outsider – a man not bought for and controlled by special interests – Donald Trump, we may find ourselves in a position, as Patrick Henry warned, without a position to regain our liberties and our beloved country.

We have been deceived far too long. VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP and EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO PROTEST.

by Diane Rufino, Oct. 29, 2016

A month ago, the despicable media demanded that Donald Trump step down over a private audio that was leaked from 13 years ago. Hillary Clinton has done terrible things; criminal things. James Comey of the FBI acknowledged publicly that she acted recklessly, dangerously, and with terrible judgement. While he would not recommend that she be indicted, he in fact characterized her actions as being a criminal violation of federal law. Now, new evidence has surfaced, from a different source and a separate investigation, showing that Clinton’s use of her private server was even more reckless than imagined. It was the use of the private server that makes her actions illegal, but it was her reasons for doing so that makes her a special kind of criminal. She used her private email server in order to hide her activities while acting as Secretary of State from the watchful eyes of government (her employer) and the American people. Emails on a private server can be deleted. They by-pass the system. Records generated by our public officials are public records belonging to the American people. We have the right to request them, to look at them, to know what our officials are doing and whether they are doing their job honestly and competently. Hillary Clinton destroyed her emails, yes, but she also destroyed public property in those communications.

With this new evidence, the FBI has decided to re-open the investigation of Clinton and her email scheme. The decision was released yesterday; Clinton and her campaign were not notified in advance. To put things in perspective, there are 11 days until we decide the next president of the United States and this bombshell has the potential to fatally undermine her chances with voters. The FBI, under Director James Comey, must have already concluded that the evidence is damning and indictable in order to make its decision at this particular juncture. Comey knows that he could potentially face an investigation himself on ethical charges of engaging in a conflict of interest (to the Clinton Foundation, the President, or to the Clintons themselves) and also if he did not consider this new evidence against her. The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton knowingly and willingly broke federal law, she did it to hide details of her personal dealings while as Secretary of State, he willingly and intentionally destroyed evidence (and most audaciously AFTER the government issued her a subpoena to turn them over), she lied repeatedly under oath (and to the American people), she committed obstruction of justice, she had the media look the other way and refuse to report on her nefarious activities, and after getting away with all of that, she had enriched herself and her husband beyond imagination, she sold OUR uranium to Russia, she left many Americans to die in Benghazi (thank God Glen Doherty and Ty Woods were made of the metal that they were or otherwise all would have perished), she destabilized the violent Middle East, she allowed ISIS to form, take root, and slaughter thousands, and she became the front-runner in the election for the highest office in the land.

It’s about time the House of Cards falls.

In light of the FBI’s decision yesterday, the question I would like to ask now is whether the despicable media will use the same energy and zeal to ask Hillary Clinton to step down.

A month ago, the Democratic Party urged that Trump step down for the same reason the media gave — the leaked audio from 2005….. for daring to talk crudely of women in private with a male buddy of his. My question is whether the Democratic Party will urge Hillary Clinton to step down and have the idiot Tim Kaine run in her place.

Clearly, the best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if, of course, the nation were more important to them than power.

And that’s the real question, right?

Republicans, for the most part, have put the country first. The great majority will tell you that Mr. Trump was not their first or preferred candidate. But they have embraced him and his ideas and have rallied around him because they love their country and their children and grandchildren more than some notion of what “being a Republican” is supposed to be about, which we all now know is about being able to concentrate political power.

So let’s see……. What will the despicable media do? How will they handle this surprise turn of events?

by Diane Rufino, Nov. 6, 2016

Donald Trump is tireless and determined. He is committed to the movement, a grassroots movement, which wants to clean up government and make it work FOR the People and not against them. Government doesn’t know better, it doesn’t spend MY money prudently OR constitutionally, it is frustrating the American Dream this country once offered to people willing to work for it, and it certainly doesn’t have the American family, America’s communities, and the safety and well-being of its citizens at heart. Too often global interests, foreign policy, voodoo science (ie, offered to support certain business opportunities and interests), and incomprehensible deals take precedence over American interests. AMERICA FIRST! Donald Trump has proven to me his level of commitment and has shown me how hard he is willing to work. I hope he will be our next President. My concern is whether people will understand the stakes of this election and rise to the occasion, and in all honesty, act in thought and deed as our Creator made us — as individuals. We are not political pawns, to be bought and sold for the greater good of a political party which is run by entrenched political elites.

For a moment, put the “R” and the “D” aside and use the noggin that God so generously gave us. There are at least two glaring differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and if these two critical differences don’t seem to have an impact on your choice for president, then shame on you. Your vote determines the strength of our Constitution and the size and nature of our government. Your vote protects our country or erodes it. In short, your vote ensures the security of the country that thankfully (although no longer realistically) still claims the glory and reputation of men like those who fought WWII – ones who defended the freedom given to us by our forefathers and fought for our safety and security. We want that country back. We need that country back.

First, Donald Trump is running for YOU, the American People. There is no doubt about that. He has willingly allowed his faults and his failings and the embarrassments of his past to re-surface, to embarrass his family and to taint their name. He has been willing to take the criticisms and insults of the entirety of the political system (the Democratic Party, the Media, and the Republican Party too), as well as the false allegations that have hurt his reputation. When he could be sitting back and enjoying the fruits of his labor and investments, spending time with his beautiful wife and young son, doting on his many grandchildren, and relaxing at his home in southern Florida, he has volunteered to give all that up for a movement that he believes in and which he believes will right the wrongs in this country which have translated to the mistreatment of the American people in general. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is running for HERSELF. She is an overly-ambitious and career politician who believes she is entitled to the office. To her, it is not about the people or the country but about the historical distinction of being the first woman president. It is about ego and power.

Hillary has been plotting this election for a long time. She played the system and played the American people. When she lost the primary election to Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, she made an agreement with him and maybe even with the corrupt Democratic Party. If she would help get Obama elected, it would be her time in 2016. And the Party would support her. She would be made Secretary of State and have the credentials to seek the office of the presidency. But what we couldn’t have imagined is the corruption, the deception, and the ambition she would bring to her position in the State Department in order to advance her plans for the presidency. She cashed in on her “favors” from her husband (for sticking by him and helping cover up his numerous sexual abuses of women as president) and together, she and Bill established the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation would be the vehicle by which Hillary would raise the money she would use to “buy” her the election. As Secretary of State, she repeatedly put the interests of herself and her plans for the presidency over the interests of the country with respect to national security. She sold national secrets and national interests to the “high bidders” on the national scene looking to make certain deals that would either benefit themselves, their companies, or their countries. Our national interests and our national security were subject to her “pay-for-play” schemes. And the money began rolling in – millions and millions and millions of dollars – all into the elicit Clinton Foundation. That is why she had her email set on her personal server. That is why she conducted State business out of her own personal server and not subject to the “eyes” of the federal government, as required by federal law. The government, the American people, could never know what she was really doing as Secretary of State. how she was using her clearance and her power, and what she was doing with classified national security information. The men in Benghazi had to be left to perish because she was conducting business there that could not be exposed to the American people.

After she stepped down as Secretary of State (and I’m not sure if it was because of the “fall” she took which so very coincidentally robbed her of her memory), she and Bill had made a fortune through the deals and the speaking fees and the “one-on-one meetings” and the “face time” with Bill or Hillary and whatever else that they offered to rake in the money. When it came time for the primary election season, she showed the Democratic Party that she is a proven money-maker. She wouldn’t need much money from the national Democratic Party because she had already raised so much. And we all know that money is at the root of all politics. And so the party embraced her and did all it could to ensure that she became the party’s candidate for president. That is why we heard Debra Wasserman Schultz and the rest of the Democratic Party communicate through emails how they would discredit Bernie Sanders and hurt his chances in the primary. They didn’t expect him to do so well and they couldn’t allow it. It wasn’t part of their plan. With all the money raised – MISAPPROPRIATED from the State Department – Hillary bribed the media, the manufacturers of the voting machines, and probably even several Republican members of Congress. With so many things taken care of, she just had one minor problem… how to get away with all her criminal activities. How will she get away with all the laws she willingly and intentionally broke? Well, that was easy. She used her influence (after all, the system had already determined that she WILL be the next president of the United States) to shake down the Justice Department (I mean, apply pressure that only the Clintons know how to apply). The meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch for 45 minutes while she was waiting on her plane was no coincidence. And it wasn’t for the opportunity to talk to her about golf and grandchildren.

If you think she acted appropriately when Secretary of State or in her use of the Clinton Foundation, just ask yourself why has the FBI done an about-face and has decided to move the investigation of Hillary Clinton forward. It’s because the agents of the FBI know that there is more than enough evidence to conduct an investigation, enough so that an indictment will be likely (otherwise it would NOT have made the decision to re-open the investigation with 11 days to Election Day; it would have waited until after the American people have casted their votes), and that a miscarriage of justice was done the first time when FBI Director James Comey recommended that no investigation be conducted. The FBI, an independent agency of the Justice Department, by-passed the Oval Office (Obama) and the Justice Department (Loretta Lynch) in issuing its letter calling for the new investigation which shows that the office is trying desperately to restore confidence in its reputation and to restore faith and confidence in its ability to gather facts, conduct investigations, uphold the rule of law, and to seek justice. With its letter of October 29, the FBI is telling the American people that they MUST NOT elect such a corrupt individual, such a flagrant and unrepentant law-breaker, such a willfully abusive politician to the highest office in the land.

SECOND, and just in case you question the motives and sincerity of the two presidential candidates, just look at how each are funding their campaigns. Donald Trump is funding his campaign with his own money. He is criss-crossing the United States many times a day (sometimes 4 and 5 times) to meet with voters and share his plans to Make America Great Again — all on his own dime. He is running his campaign, in charge of his own fundraising, hiring his own security, and arranges his own venues. He owes no one anything.. EXCEPT for the American people who are the ones who have put wind in his sails. They didn’t have to do it. They could have sat back, complained that they didn’t get a polished candidate, and taken their chances on Election Day. He is not bought by any special interest groups and is therefore not controlled by any. He is not a puppet of the Republican Party because although he is running as that party’s candidate, he is doing it HIS way, with his own money. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, could have used the money that she and Bill made in books and speaking fees and other deals to fund her campaign (after all, their net worth increased exponentially in her years as a “public” servant) but instead, chose to accept money from special interests, including foreign interests and most clearly, from the rich and powerful bankers and investors on Wall Street. If anyone dares to question whether contributions buy influence, all he needs to do is look at the speeches given by Hillary to those bankers and investors, which were released by Wikileaks. In those speeches, the “real” Hillary for president was exposed to the American people. She would have two sets of policies. One she would share with the people (and they would believe, just like everyone believed Obama) and the other would be the real policies that she would make for the benefit of the rich and powerful political elites.

Hillary Clinton is as corrupt and as ambitious as it gets. The shocking degree of her ambition alone should scare every voter. She is already prone to the type of evil that has motivated her to the heights she is now. Once in charge of all the instrumentalities of government, once able to wield the full power of the federal government, and once able to exert the influence that only the highest office in the land can exert, I can’t imagine what she could be capable of.

Donald Trump may not always “talk the talk” of an ideal candidate, but he certainly “walks the walk.” I believe this is the Donald Trump that Americans first took notice of, the man they believe can Make America Great Again, and the man they trust to lead the country and to do the right thing for all of our country’s people.

by Diane Rufino, November 7, 2016

Two weeks ago, I attended a Trump rally in Kinston, NC – about 25 miles from my house. I got there early and stood in line for nearly 2 hours, enjoying every minute chatting with a great group of people. While in line, I was interviewed for TV (a Canadian outlet) and one question I was asked was whether I put off by the lewd conversation that Donald Trump had back in 2005 in private with a male friend of his. I responded that although it may have been offensive, not once did I consider withholding my support for him. When he tried to push further, I told him I will not answer any more questions about the topic. I told him that the issue was settled back in the late 1990’s when Bill Clinton did things most unbecoming of a president (let alone a married man) and the Democrats refused to engage in condemnation because “what he does in his private life is his business and no one else’s. It was the Democrats who defended him and Hillary who fought for him (and by “fought,” I mean used the full coercive and harassment capabilities of the federal government), and for the Democrats to now rely almost solely on that old private audio as a means to assassinate Trump’s character for the same office they recently abused and vacated is the height of hypocrisy.

“I’m a big girl,” I told the reporter. “I know men aren’t angels. In fact, I imagine most men talk more like Trump than Pope Francis about women when they are in a locker room with their male buddies.” The reporter said: “Understood,” and then moved on. We had a great conversation, all on tape, and in fact, we spoke again later in the evening.

Once inside the rally, my son and I had about two hours before Trump was expected to arrive in his magnificent 747. Again, we had a wonderful time meeting and chatting with lots of like-minded folks. Just as I was ready to go look for something to drink, a journalist with the Globe and Mail stopped me. She said she had overheard me talking with others and wanted to know if she could ask me some questions for an article she was writing. The second question she asked was about my reaction to the audio where Donald Trump spoke lewdly about women. Of course the question would be asked. Of course, that question apparently is more important than what issues have me supporting Trump.

No doubt, it is a very popular question among reporters and journalists. Certainly, the topic dominates the main stream media, which only leads me to believe that women must be terribly thin-skinned and incapable of talking about nothing more than how insulted and offended they were over the old conservation. Of course, these same women must live in a cave without a radio, TV, or access to scandalous Hollywood magazines. They must have never heard a rap song, watched a music video, engaged in conversation with anyone of the modern era (casual sex is in!), listened to Howard Stern, gone to a frat party, gone to a bar, gone to any movie in the last 10-20 years, or read anything about the Kardashians or any other celebrity talk about sex, sex tapes, going out without underwear, or having breast and buttock enhancement. We live in a culture where women contour their bodies surgically and dress provocatively for the express purpose of attracting the attention of men. We live in a culture where women objectify themselves and men objectify them as well. In some parts of society, women specifically objectify themselves in order to be treated as a sex object!! We had a president (1992-2000), Bill Clinton, who objectified women. He objectified them so thoroughly that he sexually abused and harassed them. He viewed them for one purpose only – for sexual gratification. In documented encounters, Governor Clinton and then President Clinton, would meet a woman for the first time, and in fact, within mere minutes of the meeting, unzip his pants, try to introduce them to “little willie,” and then ask them to “give it a kiss.” And in an effort to cover for her husband and help save his presidency and reputation, Hillary Clinton objectified those poor female victims. Bill destroyed their dignity and Hillary destroyed their reputation.

How, it is true that Donald Trump has been critical of women in the past, oftentimes focusing on their looks, and treating them, often times, as exactly what they were – beauty pageant contestants. A woman enters a beauty pageant implicitly holding herself to an extremely high standard of beauty and shapeliness. Let’s face it, a top beauty pageant is not for women who are overweight, out-of-shape, not attractive in a bathing suit or evening gown, or not classically attractive. Sad to say, but a top beauty pageant that allows such contestants could not theoretically hold itself out as a true (physical) beauty pageant and certainly would not get the viewership that sponsors and advertisers expect. I am a woman and although I find it a bit demeaning, I acknowledge the purpose it serves. I am not going to fault it or those who demand that it hold to its high standards of physical beauty and perfection. And other women shouldn’t either. If they are offended, they are free to start a different kind of beauty pageant.

Hillary Clinton focuses the bulk of her attacks on Donald Trump by claiming that he is unfit to be president on account of his past comments regarding women. Her ads show a child being exposed to the liberal media which of course, spends the overwhelming majority of its time replaying an old audio or rehashing some old comments, and then asks whether he is fit to be president. The only time a child would ever be exposed to such insults is at the hand of the media, so is a child harmed by Donald Trump or the media? In her ads, Clinton says: Donald Trump has “spent a lot of time demeaning, degrading, insulting and assaulting women.” I have heard these political adds ad-nauseum on the radio and on TV. I find it troubling that whenever I pull up an article on Donald Trump that reports that he is going up in the polls, immediately there will be a pop-up ad from Hillary Clinton bashing Trump on his treatment of women. It happens EVERY single time. I guess that’s another scheme engineered by the liberal media to promote Clinton over Trump.

If that is the only thing Hillary Clinton can attack Donald Trump on, then Trump is an excellent candidate after all!! Trump, on the other hand, has an almost exhaustive list of items he can criticize Clinton on, least of all is her failed record, her deleted emails, her handling of Benghazi, her dogged determination to force national healthcare down the nation’s throat (during her husband’s administration), her dubious associations, her use of classified information and mis-appropriation of American interests to her own benefit as Secretary of State (thru the corrupt Clinton Foundation), her support and cover-up of her husband’s serial sexual abuse of women, her many scandals, and her many many allegations of corruption.

Donald Trump was, and never intended to be, a career politician. He didn’t have his eye on a political office. He didn’t groom himself to be the smooth-talking, politically-correct candidate who could win over every voter and every demographic. He was more suited to being the brass, living-large business tycoon, beauty-pageant manager, and reality show star. He never contemplated having his life laid out under a microscope for voters to examine and he never groomed himself. The notion that just because a man is a politician and has hugged women and kissed babies and has won over crowds means he is a wholesome, honorable human being was thrown out the window with President John F. Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson, and most notably President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill).

As bad as some of the comments he said back in 2005 (11 years ago!!), they are NOTHING compared to the lyrics in a typical rap song (and I hate to use the word “song” because rarely does one meet the criteria). Barack and Michelle Obama have embraced rap artists in their administration and have entertained their music and their concerts in the White House – with their children. Beyonce and Jay-Z, Ludacis, Kendrick Lamar, Killer Mike, P. Diddy, and others. Ludacris sings the song ‘Fatty Girl’,” which contains the lyrics? “Yo girl you taste like a Cinnabun/ so sweet from the thighs to the cheek/ sex on the beach check the size of my meat.” In 2013, Michelle Obama invited Kendrick Lamar, the rapper who sings/raps “The Bitch Don’t Kill My Vibe.” Knowing his reputation, he was asked by the White House to structure his performance for young children since there would be many in attendance. His concert was to precede a fireworks display. Instead, he spent his hour and a half using the “N” word, the “F” word, and the big daddy of them all, the “C” word. The White House had ever heard such vulgarity ever before. Michelle Obama’s hypocrisy and Hillary’s hypocrisy is astounding. Michelle Obama allowed her daughters, Malia and Sasha, to listen to Lamar’s “Hol’ Up”: “Stewardess complimentin’ me on my nappy hair/If I can f*** in front of all these passengers … Back in this bitch in the back of that bitch/ Wit’ my back against the wall and yo’ bitch on the edge of my d—/ Jump off/ I call a bitch a bitch, a ho a ho, a woman a woman.” Jay Z, who has been invited many times to the White House with his wife Beyonce (who supports the Black Lives Matter movement), is worth $520 million and a major campaign contributor and fundraiser for the Obamas. He raps such fine wholesome songs as the one called “Pussy.” It’s lyrics ooze of child pornography. Here are some of its lyrics, and notice how they “celebrate” women: “I-I know this girl we call her Sweet Cooch Brown/ Hands down Miami had the bombest pussy in town/ One dip in the girl pool, thatz all it took/ One sample of the snappa and ya ass was whooped.”

Now, I don’t know what all that means, but I know that Donald Trump has never talked like that.

I read an article, authored by Brandon Morse (RedState), in which he discussed Hillary’s attack of Trump on his lewd comments in her campaign ads. He writes “I’m sure to some women this might be affecting, but I imagine to many women, [these ads] would come off as slightly insulting. In an attempt to highlight Trump’s chauvinism, Hillary just makes women come off as fragile, and insecure. By trying to make him seem like a jerk, she painted women as weak. What Hillary has essentially done is to go after an ‘insecurity vote……If that’s not insulting to women, I’m not sure what is.”

Morse then comments on the actual response to Clinton’s ads. He emphasizes that overall, the ads have far more “down” votes than “up” votes. [44,300 votes to 26,000 votes]. In other words, the ad is more offensive than persuasive; most of the women who view such an ad find it denigrates them.

Morse concludes: “I also find it Hillaryous that she of all people would release this video seeing as she’s married to one of America’s most notorious cereal adulterers. Trump may be bad, but in terms of sexist men, there’s not many who can rival the absolute horror to women that Bill Clinton was [and who knows, might still be], and Hillary Clinton was right next to him, defending the man every step of the way.”

I agree with Mr. Morse. I am insulted by Hillary’s allegations and campaign ads that make it seem that women vote only with their emotion and their fragile sensibilities. The thought that women can’t vote more responsibly and for more important issues than the mere fact that, as a celebrity and a man who was not known for being a man of class and culture, he said some unkind and lewd comments about certain women is downright insulting.

I am proud to be a woman. I am proud to belong to the gender that nature trusts with the reproduction of the human race, the gender that gives life and in most cases, protects the life being developed. I’m proud to belong to the gender that is deemed strong enough for the greatest responsibility of them all – for the nurturing and raising of children. A woman has a thick skin, thick enough to deflect insults and hurtful comments from her children and from other mothers. A woman has the humility to put the interests of her family before herself and has the good sense to know when it is in her children’s best interests (and even her husband’s best interests) to put her career on hold or even aside. A woman is the glue that often holds her marriage together and her family. A mother never thinks of herself; she always puts her children first. She will never let her children down, including in the decisions that will affect their lives.

I don’t know what breed of woman Hillary Clinton is reaching out to with her ads insinuating that women shouldn’t vote for Donald Trump on account of the mere fact that he has said some inappropriate things about women in the past but these are not the women that I know. The women I know put their country first. They put the well-being of their family first; they put their children first. They put their feelings last.

If women were truly as shallow as Hillary Clinton believes (or hopes), then nature would have done a fairly poor job of selecting her for the critical role she was created for.

WOMEN FOR DONALD TRUMP !!!

References:

Brandon Morse, “Hillary’s Ad Attacking Trump’s Piggish Nature Comes Off Making Women Look Fragile,” RedState, September 27, 2016. Reference at: http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/09/27/hillarys-ad-attacking-trumps-piggish-nature-comes-making-women-look-fragile/

Nancy Smith, “People in the White House Shouldn’t Throw Stones,” Sunshine State News, Oct. 17, 2016. Referenced at: http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/people-white-houses-shouldnt-throw-stones

By Diane Rufino, December 24, 2016

In the 1984 case Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court was asked to consider if the First Amendment prohibited the municipality of Pawtucket, Rhode Island from including a Nativity scene, in its annual Christmas display. The display included a plastic reindeer, a Santa Clause, and a Christmas tree. The Court concluded that the Nativity scene could remain, explaining: “We are satisfied that the city has a secular purpose for including the creche, that the city has not impermissibly advanced religion.” According to the court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, erecting a nativity scene in the public square doesn’t encourage any religious belief and therefore doesn’t erode the Wall of Separation that the government must respect. Noting that the display was erected at a location and at a time corresponding to the start of the holiday “commercial” season, the Court reasoned that the two centuries of use has changed the meaning of the Nativity scene from a religious symbol to a commercial item. “The crèche (Nativity scene) has a legitimate secular purpose within a larger holiday display to celebrate the season and the origins of Christmas which has long been a part of Western culture.” And writing for the dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: “The crèche has been relegated to the role of a neutral harbinger of the holiday season, useful for commercial purposes but devoid of any inherent meaning and incapable of enhancing the religious tenor of a display of which it is an integral part.”

The Nativity scene, the symbol of Christmas, has become more of a commercial symbol than a religious system. That was the conclusion of the highest court of the land – back in 1984. It got me thinking of the holiday in general and what it really means. Have we succeeded in divorcing its true meaning? Has the Christmas tree taken the place of the alter? Can it be said that what man has to sell has become more important than what God has given? When the holiday is over, do we act like the merchant who rids his store of Christmas in a day. Or do we keep Christmas in our hearts?

When I was young, my Mom and I spent a lot of time in church. We attended regular weekly and Sunday services at the Methodist Church across the street (Carlton Hill Methodist Church) and additional services at the Catholic Church (St. Joseph’s Church) at the other end of town. There was always a Christmas Eve mass at Carlton Hill and a midnight mass at St. Joe’s. We went to sleep on Christmas Eve reflecting on the true meaning of Christmas and awakening the next morning to celebrate the holiday with our families.

When I finished college and went out on my own, Christmas became the time of year when I could look forward to traveling back home and seeing my family. Christmas mass continued to be a treasured family tradition. Then I started a family of my own. For years, it was work, then law school, being pregnant, having four children and suffering a few miscarriages. Life couldn’t be anymore hectic. Christmas became less of a holiday for me and more of a holiday for my young children. I wanted the holiday to be magical for them, and looking back, unfortunately, that meant “commercial.” I decorated the house with colorful lights and shiny objects and piled presents under the tree to delight them on Christmas Day. I cared more that they got everything their hearts could desire than whether or not they understood the meaning of Christmas. Because of all the last-minute shopping to be done, I rarely made Christmas Eve mass, and because of all the cooking I had to do for Christmas Day dinner, there were no more of the midnight masses that I once loved so much.

I guess what I am saying is that over the years, the Christmas season has become less of a time of rejoicing and more of a test of endurance. And I’m quite sure the fault is mine.

For most people, especially the younger generation, Christmas is the time of year to get new toys, fancy gadgets, the latest in technology, jewelry and new clothes, and in some cases, extra cash. It’s not about a child born to a virgin, spending its first hours of life in a manger and in the humblest of settings… a child born to save us from our sinful nature so that we stand a chance at eternity with our Heavenly Father. It’s a week off from school, time off from work, a convenient time for a winter break, a chance to get away for a vacation, an opportunity to get things, a perfect time to get engaged to a sweetheart, a time to spend lots of money on gifts for family and friends, a time to visit family that you only see once a year. It can be fun. It can be stressful. But I’m sure most people would not describe the Christmas holiday as “religious” and “reflective.”

This year, as I ponder what it is I hope to enjoy during the Christmas holiday, I know I want to start believing in the true magic of Christmas again. As my parents and other family members wish to retreat from the hectic family gatherings and the lavish dinners and parties, I understand that the holiday has perhaps become too overwhelming in many ways. When I was a college student and when I was single, living on my own, I didn’t look forward to traveling back home to see my Mom and Dad because I was excited to see what Christmas gifts they got me. I could have cared less if there was a single gift for me under the tree. I just wanted to spend time with them and be together as a family at that special time of year. I just wanted to have dinner together, be reminded of what it was like to live in the same house again, and wake up, have breakfast together and start the days together. And yes, I looked forward to going to Christmas mass together. I loved to hear the Christmas story. And I couldn’t wait to sing Christmas carols.

Christmas should be about giving and not getting. When we ask our children and even our spouses ‘What do you want for Christmas?’, we are asking a question that breeds selfishness. What we should be asking (in order to breed selflessness) is this: “What are you going to give?” After all, isn’t Christmas the celebration of God’s great gift-giving? “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.” (John 3:16)

Christmas should be a simple holiday. It shouldn’t be the commercial nightmare it has become. How many times have we racked our brains trying to figure out what to get someone? How many times have we traveled from store to store simply because we want to find something the recipient doesn’t already have? How many times do we concede that the gift isn’t really all that good and they probably won’t care for it, but hey, at least we got them something? How many times have we just given up and put cash in a card? And how many times do we end up going over budget and then fight with our spouses or stress out because too much money was put on credit cards?

Christmas is not so much about enjoying time off from school and work as it is spending time with family. Christmas is not as much about opening our presents as it is opening our hearts. It’s not as much about giving gifts as it is giving of ourselves.

In 1949, President Harry Truman gave these remarks during the tree-lighting ceremony at the White House: “We miss the purport of Christ’s birth if we do not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone – the love of God and the love of man – will be found the solution of all the ills which afflict the world today. Slowly, sometimes painfully, but always with increasing purpose, emerges the great message of Christianity — love of our fellowmen. In such a dedication, we shall find the message of the Child of Bethlehem, the real meaning of Christmas.”

Just as when we partake of the Eucharist, we acknowledge the sacrifice and the promise of Jesus’ crucifixion, Christmas should be a time for us to rededicate ourselves to the principles he taught.

Because He came to earth, we have a perfect example to follow. As we strive to become more like Him, we will have joy and happiness in our lives and peace each day of the year. It is His example which, if followed, stirs within us more kindness and love, more respect and concern for others.

Because He came, there is meaning to our mortal existence.

Because He came, we know how to reach out to those in trouble or distress, wherever they may be.

Because He came, death has lost its sting, the grave its victory. We will live again because He came.

Because He came and paid for our sins, we have the opportunity to gain eternal life.

Because He came, we are gathered tonight to worship Him, in bonds of brotherhood and love.

We miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the birth of baby Jesus as a age-old, far-off event unrelated to our spiritual health and also to the problems we suffer in our communities, in our country, and in the world in general. We miss the spirit of Christmas if we do not spend time loving our family and receiving their love so that we know how to love others.

Even if a person lacks faith, the Christmas birth can still hold a special message of love and goodness. While believers ultimately celebrate that Jesus came into the world, in fulfillment of scripture, to save us of our sin, the simple truth is that we honor the birth of Jesus because of what he would become and what he would sacrifice on our behalf. His lowly birth should remind us of the potential in each newborn baby. We can’t know of each child’s potential, but as the birth of Jesus reminds us, the potential is there. We also can’t know to what degree a child’s love will affect us, but again, we know that the love between parents and children is amongst the strongest and unconditioned. We need to love and nurture our children. All children are special; they are gifts from God. The love we give is returned to us many-fold. Nothing in life is more important than investing in our children, showing them love, and giving them a sense of worth.

I hope this Christmas that you have taken time to read the Christmas story and to appreciate it. “Christmas is a gift of love wrapped in human flesh and tied securely with the strong promises of God. It is more than words can tell, for it is a matter for the heart to receive, believe and understand.”

Here is the Christmas Story, as told by Matthew and Luke:

Matthew 1: 1-17: This is the genealogy of Jesus, the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

Luke 1: 5-80: There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. They had no child, because that Elizabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

It came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, his job was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord, according to the custom of the priest’s office. While the whole multitude of the people were praying while he burned the incense, there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar. When Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him: “Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. Thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall turn to the Lord their God. He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Zacharias said unto the angel: “Whereby shall I know this, for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years?”

And the angel answered unto him, saying: “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. Behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.”

And the people waited for Zacharias, and marveled that he tarried so long in the temple. When he came out, he could not speak unto them and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.

And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. Soon after, his wife Elizabeth conceived, and hid herself for five months, saying: “The Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.”

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. The angel came in unto her, and said: “Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” When she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

The angel said unto her: “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest. The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

Then said Mary unto the angel: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? The angel answered and said unto her: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. The holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age. This is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.”

Mary said: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word.” And the angel departed from her.

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda. She entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary, the babe leaped in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. She spoke, with a loud voice, saying: “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. How is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as I heard your voice, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.”

And Mary said: “My soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior, for he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden… For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. His mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever.”

And Mary abode with her about three months, and then returned to her own house. Elizabeth then went into labor and she brought forth a son. Her neighbors and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her and they rejoiced with her.

It came to pass, that on the eighth day, they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. But his mother answered and said: “No; he shall be called John.” They said unto her: “There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.”

Then fear came on all that dwelt round about them, for all throughout all the hill country of Judaea, there were rumors. They asked: “What manner of child shall this be?” For they heard the hand of the Lord was with him.

His father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David. He has spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us. He will remember his holy covenant, that oath which he swore to our father Abraham, and perform the mercy promised to our fathers. He will grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, and in holiness and righteousness, all the days of our life. The child shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, for he shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God.’

Matthew 1: 18-24: Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth.

Luke 2: 1-22: It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (This taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.). And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David), to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. So it was, that while they were there, she went into labor. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. Shepherds in the field kept watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. The angel said unto them: “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. This shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”

Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: “Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.”

They came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known everything that was told to them by the shepherds concerning the child. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. When the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord….

Matthew 2: 1-21: After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this, he was disturbed and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.” After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled.

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

MERRY CHRISTMAS !! And HAPPY NEW YEAR !

by Diane Rufino, January 25, 2017

Last week, I drove to our nation’s capital from North Carolina to witness the swearing-in of the 45^th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and to celebrate with like-minded Americans his inauguration. It was a great day – an electric day!!  The next, Saturday, I woke up in my hotel room and prepared for a full day of walking around the national mall, visiting all the monuments and memorials, and then finishing up at the Supreme Court building, a place I’ve never been able to visit on all my prior visits to DC. I had no idea that a bunch of protesters were beginning to assemble. I had not heard about the Women’s March on DC.

But I soon found out. Heading out of the hotel, I saw some women with crazy-looking knitted pink hats on their heads. And then I saw some men with the same hats on.  What was going on?  A lady walking down the street with me told me the story. There was going to be a big march – Women’s March – down Pennsylvania Ave. to the Capitol, to protest Trump’s inauguration and to “stand up for their rights” and their issues. The organizers of the event, including Linda Sarsour (executive director of the Arab American Organization of New York and an activist seeking Sharia Law in the US), encouraged participants to wear pink hats to show solidarity and hence, to feel empowered. The pink hats are “pussyhats” – a sartorial reference to a comment that Mr. Trump made, which was captured in an audio, about Hollywood women being so loose that you can “grab them by the ***** (genitals).” The comment was made 12-13 years ago.

We both asked each other the same question: “Where were the marches and the protests years ago when Democratic president Bill Clinton was serially objectifying women and sexually harassing them?  Why weren’t women outraged then?”  Clinton actually put his hands and mouth on women and using his position of power as president of the most powerful nation in the world, coerced women for sexual favors such as oral sex in the Oval Office while Donald Trump merely talked about it in a moment of male bravado with another man.

So, it couldn’t be Trump’s treatment of women that worked these women up in a frenzy. They were clearly content to look the other way when the conduct came from someone of their own political party. They were clearly content to look the other way when the conduct was far more objectifying and harassing. And they were perfectly fine voting for and then supporting via protest the day after Trump’s inauguration for a woman (Hillary Clinton) who used her power as the president’s wife to further harass, intimidate, slander, and otherwise destroy the victims’ reputation and credibility. When women did not readily submit, offer their body parts and “services” to her husband and then remain quiet about it, she took the active role in protecting her husband’s position rather than standing up for the very rights and dignity women in the march were so vocally protesting for. Again, the march could not be simply about Trump’s use of a crass term.

Walking further into the Lion’s den, I noticed signs that read “We Stand for Women’s Rights” and “Equality for Women.” And so, I thought about the rights that these women might be referring to. Women can vote (19^th Amendment), they cannot be discriminated in hiring (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and they cannot be paid differently for the same job under the same conditions (again, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).  Not only are women’s rights protected under the law, but if they believe they are discriminated against, they have a cause of action to sue and seek justice.

What about LGBT rights?  In 2015, the Supreme Court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, handed its opinion down that homosexuals and lesbians have the right marry.  If heterosexuals can marry, then under an equal protection argument, homosexuals and lesbians have that right too.  Donald Trump doesn’t have a problem with same-sex marriage but he believes the Supreme Court over-stepped his authority by making it a national policy when the decision should have been left to each state independently.  I believe Trump is absolutely correct in this position.  Marriage is historically a state issue only, pursuant to its police powers.

My guess is that the LGBT participants were just protesting because they don’t like Trump, don’t like what he stands for (ie, not a progressive), and don’t want him as the president.

Once I got to Jefferson Ave and then Independence Ave (heading to the Jefferson Memorial), and trying to navigate through the crowds coalescing closer towards Pennsylvania Ave, there was one theme that rang out more loudly than the others. The countless signs speaking to the unfettered right of women over her body and fertility, abortion rights, and the right to have healthcare cover it all was all I needed to see to understand that one of the main purposes of the Women’s March was to show their joint support for their right to an abortion. According to these “Women’s Rights” protesters, Roe v. Wade was a great decision which essentially gave women the right to abort a pregnancy at any time for any reason without any government interference. It’s their body, they claim, and they are entitled to have complete control over what is done with it. They also want their health insurance to cover their abortions. That is, they want taxpayers to pay for them. “It’s My Body; My Choice.  But I want YOU to Pay for It!”  They are in full panic mode because of Trump’s promise to repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which among other things requires health insurers to cover birth control, and his very vocal position on the future make-up of the Supreme Court so that it values the life of the unborn.

By the way, when did “Women’s Rights” become synonymous with the right to terminate the life of a living but yet unborn child?  That logic seems to boils down to this: “My life would be easier without this baby in it and I have the right over my own life and destiny. And besides, that baby’s life is inconsequential and not valuable.”  And so, the woman terminates that baby’s life for her ease and comfort.

Perhaps it was the March for Life that was going to take place in six days (Friday, January 27), in concert with the President’s inauguration, that convinced the protesters to march when they did.  Perhaps it was a brilliant plan to invite women holding any of a myriad of grievances against Donald Trump to march at the same time. This way, they could claim on January 21 that the march was in protest of his election and then claim for purposes of the national debate on abortion (v. the Right to Life) that the rally was in support of abortion and was larger than the March for Life. There is power in numbers. And we all know how the liberal media loves numbers (and loves to misrepresent them too!). To see how the organizers reached out to all groups who oppose Trump, simply read their manifesto – their “Guiding Vision and Principles of the Women’s March on Washington.”  *

While the protest was officially designed to be an anti-Trump event, the sea of pink hats sent the equally-collective message that the march was in support of abortion rights. The march therefore, served two purposes for the Left.

As it turns out, the organizers of the march refused to recognize and allow any groups who are not in favor of abortion to be officially part of the march. The biggest sponsor of the march was Planned Parenthood and other support flowed from none other than George Soros. According to the mission statement for the march (“Overview & Purpose” *), the purpose of the march is to demonstrate for a particular vision of government which recognizes their views. The first of these reads: “We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. This is the basic and original tenet for which we unite to March on Washington.” In other words, it was a protest against President Trump and his new administration. The statement or manifesto goes on to elaborate other reasons for rallying against Trump, including that “the rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened” women of all different communities.

According to the website listing the groups affiliated with the march, what united the groups was their demand for “open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people.” This, apparently, summed up what they considered their essential “Women’s Rights.”  The other themes – equality in the workplace, open immigration, non-registry for immigrants and refugees from Islamic countries – were just peripheral; just additional scenery; just another ruse to get as many warm bodies to march in what would ultimately be a show of hatred of Donald Trump. Women who did not vote for Trump but were pro-life were taken off the official list of marchers and not recognized. And they were made to feel that they are not “woman enough” because somehow they have sold out the gender. In fact, organizer Linda Sarsour had this message for them – If you show up, you better understand that you are going to be counted as among those who support a woman’s right to choose. The only women who were officially associated with the march and listed as part of the event were those who oppose President Trump AND who are pro-abortion. The Women’s March essentially declared that pro-life women do not have a place at the event, even if a woman is an ally on every other issue that the protest claims to fight for.

Any pretext that the march would present an intelligent articulation of the protesters’ grievances was thrown out the window when the actress Ashley Judd took the stage.  She said that she, and other protesters, who want to terminate a pregnancy up until the day before delivery, are “nasty women,” but “not as nasty as the man in the White House.”  She read a thrash poem written by a 19-year-old community college student Nina Donovan who was enraged that Donald Trump referred to Hillary Clinton as a “nasty woman” during the campaign.

It was a vile poem by a young girl who has been brainwashed and stupefied by the rantings of progressives who have long turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of Democrats and who have tied themselves to the party of every group seeking to erode and destroy the fabric of the United States or otherwise parasitize and weaken everything good that we once stood for and the party that seeks to destroy everything good and decent in our society for the greater goal of absolute personal freedom without any accountability or consequence.

Any pretext that the march would be civil and dignified was thrown out the window when Madonna, the skanky, sex-obsessed star of the 80’s, took the podium. She talked about the march being the start of a revolution. “We refuse as women to accept this new age of tyranny. Where not just women are in danger but all marginalized people. It took us this darkness to wake us the fuck up….  It seems as though we had all slipped into a false sense of comfort. That justice would prevail and that good would win in the end. Well, good did not win this election…  Let’s march together through this darkness and with each step. Know that we are not afraid. That we are not alone, that we will not back down. That there is power in our unity…  To our detractors that insist that this March will never add up to anything, fuck you. Fuck you.”  She concluded by saying: “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House….”  Apparently, she also performed, torturing thousands. During her so-called performance of “Human Nature,” she cheerfully told President Trump to “suck a d—k.”  Always the epitome of grace and class, Madonna didn’t disappoint.

Madonna is washed-up and used-up. She may not want to give up, but sure wish she would shut up.

And I wish all of Hollywood would too.  I mean, where does anyone in Hollywood or in the sex industry (I mean, pop music industry), have the moral high ground to criticize the conduct of anyone?  Hollywood and cinema oozes sexual exploitation. Movies are filled with nudity, sex scenes, inappropriate attitudes towards sexuality, and cheapened roles of women in society. Pop singers dress provocatively and dance suggestively. Their music videos are glorified soft porn videos. Sex sells. I can’t even begin to describe what rappers and the women they associate with sing about, dance about, and do in their videos. All of these entertainers, most of who associate with the types who protest Donald Trump and who support the Women’s March, are hypocrites. Their personal lives are rife with scandal, affairs, drugs, children out-of-wedlock, marriages that barely last a year, boob jobs, liposuction, and plastic surgery. In other words, they live their lives without consequence and display a total lack of morals. They wouldn’t know what the inside of a church looks like or understand why the family unit is important to society.  They would do well to look in the mirror and understand that their conduct and immorality has done more to undermine the legitimacy and status of women in our society than any comment that Trump has made. It is their conduct that has led to the current trend where young women put themselves out there to be objectified and cheapened. They cheapen themselves through the way they act. And when men happen to take notice, they clamor for the so-called right to be treated with “dignity” and not as sex objects.

The feminazis (a term used here to denote their use of propaganda to deceive and breed hatred) certainly worked themselves up into in a frenzy feeding on their collective disdain for Trump and then diluted their followers into believing that he will use his presidency to strip them of their “Women’s Rights.”  I’m sure they believe that.  Perhaps they believe that if they make enough noise and show enough numbers that Trump will rethink his position, rethink his policies, and abandon his choices for the high court.

Putting aside the vulgarity and the hate and the incendiary language and the hype that women will be losing their rights under a Trump presidency, and putting aside the obvious solidarity the protesters showed for their right to an abortion ahead of the March for Life, the march was held for one reason and one reason only – to lash out at the fact that they LOST the election and to show their disdain for the great man who won the election. It wasn’t so much a march for women as it was a march against President Trump. The march, first and foremost, was intended to stain Trump’s perfect inaugural week-end, and through its numbers, attempt to make the case (thru the liberal media) that Trump’s election was somehow illegitimate and that he is a threat to the rights of so many citizens. It was intended to embarrass him, to emphasize the point of the liberal media that Trump is a divider and not a unifier, and provide fodder for the liberal media so that they didn’t have to provide coverage of the exciting day that he had being sworn in as our new president.  In fact, one of the most common signs was one that read: “NOT MY PRESIDENT.”   [And “Pussies Against Trump!”]

I’m not saying the March for Women was not enormous and imposing in its scope. It was. It was clearly well-organized and fueled by a deep hatred by most groups comprising the Left for our new president…  a hatred that no protester could articulate rationally. In the days following the rally, critics have made this point over and over again. Why was the Communist Party marching with the Women’s March?  Why were groups supporting Sharia Law marching? Surely, Sharia Law can’t be compatible with the rights articulated by the March’s mission statement. Hypocrisy and offensive conduct defeated the impact of the protest. Where were the protests when Democrats were objectifying women?  Why wasn’t Joe Biden vilified and called a racist when he said that then-Sen. Barack Obama was the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Rather, he was embraced as the choice for vice-president.  What is so unbecoming a woman who wants to express the view that her body be respected for the life it can bring forth that she was unwelcome to march alongside the others?

How glaring was the irony in removing a pro-life sponsor from the Women’s March?  In doing so, they showcased the same divisiveness, intolerance, and discrimination as the claims they wheeled against the man who now sits in the White House and whose election they so energetically protested against.  How ironic is it that the Women’s March organizers chose the famous quote by African-American poet Audre Lorde to close their mission statement: “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences”?

Perhaps liberals and progressives will never be able to understand conservatives and vice-versa. Perhaps the differences in ideology and lifestyle expectations are just too extreme from one another. Maybe it is true that a second Civil War is upon us and that right now, we are fighting ideologically rather than physically. And maybe that is why Donald Trump has advocated that on certain issues, the policy should be left to the individual states and should not lie with the federal government.

Conservatives never approved of Barack Obama and his politics or agenda but they never protested in the street claiming that he was not their president.  They may have protested his ramming of Obamacare down the nation’s throat, despite the majority of the people not in favor of it and despite a great majority of legal scholars believing national healthcare was unconstitutional. They may have protested how he pushed for that legislation and the backdoor politics involved that so completely went against his campaign promise of complete transparency. But they never behaved as if he was not the president of all of America. They never held themselves out as being a segment of the population that was entitled to something different than the rest of the country or that their voices were more important than others.

If you live in the United States and consider yourself an American, then the election process outlined in the US Constitution dictates how our presidents are chosen. Because we are not a monolithic society, the candidate with the most electoral votes becomes the president. He (or she) is elected because he represents the prevailing view across the entire country, recognizing the fact that people in different states have different views, different concerns, and different issues that need to be addressed equally by the government that sits in DC. In a federal system as we have, the constituents (the states) are represented equally and fairly and not the individual citizens as a whole. Donald Trump was elected fairly by the people. He may not have been elected by any of the people who marched in any of the Women’s Marches that took place across the country on the day after the election, but he was elected fairly and legally.

The country spoke through Donald Trump and they were quite clear on one thing – they were rejecting the progressive agenda of the Democratic Party on the national level.  They endured eight years of an extremely progressive president, and based on what they saw him do, what they watched on TV and read in the news regarding the state of the nation and the world, what they learned the courts were doing, what they noticed in the conduct of our youth, and what they experienced on a personal and economic level, they concluded that the country was heading in the wrong direction, including the government’s ability to interpret the Constitution.

For example, on the issue of abortion, the consensus among American women is that there needs to be limits on the right to have an abortion. As it stands now, under Roe v. Wade, a woman has an unfettered right to an abortion on demand – at any time and for any reason. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that doctors, facilities and other entities cannot place any obstacles to a woman’s exercise of this right – including an 1-day waiting period, including information about what the procedure will do to the baby, and including showing the woman an ultrasound of the life inside her. The national consensus today is that there should be limits on the right and ability to obtain an abortion and that limit is the first three months. In other words, the majority of women respect the right to life of the unborn and believe that if a woman wishes to abort the fetus growing in her womb, it is not unreasonable to require her to do so within the first three months. Together with those who do not support abortion at all time, the majority of women in the United States recognize the right to grow and survive in the growing fetus and the right to life in the unborn. This is in stark contrast to the women who marched in DC (and in other cities around the country) who would treat the miracle inside her as merely a mass of cells without any inherent humanity and would deny that living miracle the most essential of all rights bestowed upon living things by our Creator – the right to life.  Hence, the majority of Americans, when faced with the realization that the next president would appoint new members to the US Supreme Court and hopeful for the opportunity to see limits placed on the right to an abortion, voted for Donald Trump.  Our national conscience was at stake in this election.

By the way, no other country, except perhaps Pakistan and China, are as progressive as the United States when it comes to abortion rights. Europe, while recognizing rights to an abortion, at least have limits on when they can be performed.

How can we continue to pray to our Creator for his continued blessings on our country, in the many things we do and the many challenges we face, when we blatantly reject his teachings through our nation’s position on abortion? As Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood, commented: “Access to abortion is an American Value.”  How can we expect the blessings of Divine Providence when we continue to devalue the life, the most innocent of life, he has given us and stand by as women allow themselves to become pregnant through casual conduct and then terminate that life so callously?  We have to do better.

But those who marched and those who think like them do not want to do better. They don’t want to even try to do better. In fact, their position is that they have a right not to be expected to do better. They want the national position to be that women have the right to a government that rejects any sense of morality in its laws and policies.  To them, a woman’s bundle of rights includes the right to be free from morals and expectations.

And hence, we saw protesters of every type marching for their right not to be judged, not to be labeled by the traditional meaning of “woman,” for their right to unfettered a access to an abortion, for their right to have their birth control and abortions paid for by the American taxpayer, and for their right to dress like complete sluts while making sure men don’t think of them or treat them that way.

The march reminded me of the actions of a young child. If you take away her toy, at first she tries to beg for the toy back. When that doesn’t work, she pouts and cries. When that doesn’t work, she takes a hissy fit and then starts to call her Mom all kinds of names. “You’re a mean Mom!”  “I hate you!”

As I mentioned earlier, when I arrived in DC for the inauguration festivities, I was unaware of the march.  It was not until I got up and out of my hotel that I learned about it.  Although the protest was called “The Women’s March on DC,” the title was deceiving. It certainly was not a march on behalf of all women. As mentioned earlier, the Women’s March did not represent all women because they chosen not to. It represented only women who think like the organizers. If a woman does not think or act in line with their specific brand of feminism, she does not count as a woman and cannot march under the banner of “Women’s March.”

Doesn’t a woman have the right, in the face of adversity and perhaps in the face of being without a husband to support and love her and the fetus inside her, to choose life?  Why did the organizers of the March reject this viewpoint?  How COULD they reject this viewpoint?  How did it happen that Women’s Rights groups have been able to brainwash women to overlook the horrific acts which accomplish an abortion and convince her that they are part of her bundle of equality rights. Frankly, it baffles me.

As Kelsey Kurtinitis writes in her article in the Liberty Conservative: “The Women’s March claims to recognize that “defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us” — but how can they not realize that the most marginalized group in America is the unborn? No other group in the country has been targeted for mass murder; more than 54 million babies have been killed since the Roe V Wade decision in 1973.”

Jen Kuznicki, in Conservative Review, writes: “The whitewash of the mass genocide and torture of the unborn in America by pro-abort groups is a stain on this great nation equal to the acceptance and proliferation of slavery. Yet some women continue to refuse to look at what they claim is their right for what it actually means.

Diluted by the false narrative that women ought to be able to do what they wish with their own bodies, the protesters (pro-abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood) are blind to the fact that the body growing within their womb is a completely different body. It has different DNA, different blood, and will have a unique soul. And yet, that separate body – that new body – was partly created by her. This fact, together with the hormones surging through her body (in and of itself a miracle of nature and God), help create a bond of affection and protection.

Abortion is the most violent of rejections of both those human traits. Saline abortions burn the fetus and kill it. A saline abortion involves an injection of a very caustic salt solution into the amniotic sac which the baby swallows, causing his or her death. Labor begins 12 – 36 hours later.” If one were to watching this process take place, it would be clear that there is torture involved. On an ultrasound, the unborn child can be viewed thrashing around in immense pain as his or her skin burns. No less a means of torture is the suction aspiration abortion where the baby is pulled into the strong suction of a vacuum which rips off her or her legs and arms before the body and head are crushed. Again, on ultrasound, the baby can be seen moving desperately to push away from that vacuum. Already, the baby has a strong will to survive.

Finally, there is the D&E abortion (Dilation and Evacuation), which is performed in the second trimester of pregnancy – usually between weeks 13 and 24 but can used up until week 32. This procedure is particularly heinous because the doctor himself dilutes the woman’s cervix and then uses instruments to physically, surgically break the baby’s bones and tear off his or her arms and legs. As Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortion doctor, testified in court: “We would attack the lower part of the lower extremity first, remove, you know, possibly a foot, then the lower leg at the knee and then finally we get to the hip.”  [Sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S].  Dr. Paul Jarrett, another abortion doctor, testified: “I used ring forceps to dismember the 13 or 14-week-size baby. Inside the remains of the rib cage I found a tiny, beating heart.”

Former abortion doctor Dr. Anthony Levatino explained (in testimony) “Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4 to 5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs. The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.” In one medical text (Dr. Warren Hern, pg. 154), under “Abortion Practice,” where it describes the “legal procedure for conducting an abortion”, it reads: “A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus…”  Dr. Jarrett remembers: “I was finally able to remove the head and look squarely into the face of a human being…a human I had just killed.”

We all know that the growing fetus can feel pain but can we imagine the torture and the intense pain the baby feels, at age 20-32 weeks, while being harmed and dismembered.

The coup de grace, of course, occurs when the baby, after surviving this parade of absolute horribles, miraculously is born still alive. Very often, the doctor will “finish him or her off” by severing the spinal cord, crushing the skull, or something equally abhorrent, and then tossing the body in a garbage.

If that’s a problem (and to most it isn’t), according to the Women’s Choice activists, there is always the post-conception pill (Plan B).  Unfortunately, w kills the child at a much more acceptable phase of life, between five and nine weeks. The only thing is that the pill starves the child to death over a long period of time.

Abortion goes against all things which are natural. It’s a termination of a life, however you look at it. This insensitivity to life and this outright torture of an innocent unborn baby cannot be what is meant by a “Woman’s Right.”

Remember the mission statement proclaimed by the Women’s March: “We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. This is the basic and original tenet for which we unite to March on Washington.”  How can a woman boast advocacy for human rights while simultaneously denying the humanity of unborn human beings?  How can a woman, of all human beings, deny this?  How can a woman march for her unfettered ability to have casual and consequence-free sex (claiming it to be a protectable right) while at the same time fighting against the inalienable right to life of the developing young woman in the womb?

As it turns out, there are more women who do not share the same position on abortion as those who protested.  And I am one of them.

Now, the abortion issue is what bothers me terribly. I understand that mistakes happen, birth control is not fool-proof, and that there can be instant regrets, but that is not what this group is about. They want full control over what happens in their womb and with their body, including the unfettered right to terminate a pregnancy at any time for any reason whatsoever (ie, the most liberal reading of Roe v. Wade). The problem is that when a woman is pregnant, there is a second body inside her, a second life, with a separate set of genes and an equal right to life. The womb she seeks so selfishly and aggressively to protect is the same womb that God and nature blessed her with in order to carry out the most important job of all – bringing forth new life and propagating the most advanced and special of all of God’s creations.

God, in His infinite wisdom, gave women this enormous responsibility. Knowing her capacity for love, patience, nurturing, wisdom, and devotion, she was the gender chosen for this incredible and essential of nature’s processes. And for all of man’s time on Earth, she has taken care that this process has continued and has moved us forward. She has conceived and born children, she has loved her children unconditionally and regardless of the situation in which they were given to her, she has nurtured and educated them, and has set them free to take their places in our society. She has helped in immeasurable ways to form the solid foundation on which our communities are built.

The women who marched on January 21 have their right to do so, but how sad it is that they ignore the fact that another human being is involved and how sad it is that they reject the awesome responsibility that God and nature has placed with them. In this, they only weaken the role a woman holds in our society, not strengthen it.

References:
* Mission Statement of the Women’s March — https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584086c7be6594762f5ec56e/t/587ffb31d2b857e5d49dcd4f/1484782386354/WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+Definition+of+Principles.pdf

Exposing Abortion.  http://exposeabortion.com/

Kelsey Kurtinitis, “The Exclusionary Hypocrisy of the Women’s March,” The Liberty Conservative, January 17, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/exclusionary-hypocrisy-womens-march-washington/

Jen Kuznicki, “Women’s March on Washington is Really a March Against Women, Science, and Life Itself,” January 2017.  Referenced at:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/womens-march-on-washington-is-really-a-march-against-women-science-and-life-itself

by Diane Rufino, January 21, 2017

Yesterday I visited the Jefferson Memorial to commune with my favorite Founding Father. Jefferson is perhaps the single reason I am so very proud to be an American. The principles he articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which the Second Continental Congress adopted in 1776, laid the basis for our independence from Great Britain. It established the principles and government philosophy that defines us as a nation, and although it’s message is lost on most Americans, I am sure to remind my students how it laid the basis for government by proclaiming that power originates with the individual and that power can never be fully divested from them. The Declaration informed Britain and the rest of the world that the thirteen colonies were dedicated first and foremost to the recognition and preservation of individual liberty. To that end, they proclaimed “to a candid world” that individuals of those colonies have the natural right to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, government serves the people and its primary role is, and should be, to protect their rights. Nowhere in our founding documents does it state that government is a permanent fixture. Nowhere does it provide that the government has the right to seeks its longevity or its permanence. Rather, it exists in form and organization just as long as it serves its legitimate ends. The people always have the right – even the duty – to alter or abolish it when it frustrates its purpose.  Jefferson and Madison, along with our other Founders, knew full well that power would corrupt if it was centralized enough in government, then government would eventually limit or even deny rights away to the people. And in many instances, we see that the fears of our Founders have come to fruition.

What I learned from Jefferson is that when it comes to citizenship, it is perhaps more important to represent an idea or an ideal than merely a physical location.

And so I sat inside the rotunda and gazed up for awhile at this under-appreciated Founding Father. I walked around the room and read some of his poignant quotes memorialized on the walls and reflected on their timeless message. Sadly, to some degree, our government has rejected his wisdom.  Then I went outside the rotunda and looked straight across the tidal basin towards the rest of the National Mall. I could easily see the Washington Monument.  And I could also see the White House.  What I couldn’t see was the Lincoln Memorial.  I thought about that for a moment. And then I began to  note its significance.

It’s true that the Jefferson Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial are not visible to one another. I think there is a reason for that, whether or not it was a conscious factor in the Mall’s design. Abraham Lincoln didn’t see eye to eye with Jefferson. In fact, his vision of government was quite different. While the Declaration of Independence clearly provides that individuals can alter or abolish their government, Lincoln adamantly proclaimed that the Union, and by extension the federal government, was to be perpetual. In fact, after he repeatedly ignored and even violated provisions of the Constitution, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned journalists, publishers, newspaper owners, citizens and seized their property, waged war without a declaration, etc, he sought a resolution from Congress to excuse those violations. Such a resolution was proposed and it read: “For the preservation of the federal government,”…..  Congress would the actions of President Lincoln.  (The resolution was never voted upon because the session of Congress concluded for the year). Lincoln had to ignore the principles laid down in the Declaration if he was to use force to bring the South back into the Union and convince the North that he had the power to do so.

President Lincoln destroyed the notion of limited government and its relationship to the individual, as promised in the Declaration, and our country has never sought to reclaim those ideals. Why?  Because government had become so strong and no one, no state, and certainly no government official had the guts to challenge the creature that the government had become. States have cowered and caved. They have tacitly relinquished their independence and have become subjugated to the design and will of the federal government. Perhaps that is why, when the government designed the National Mall, it put the memorial to Abraham Lincoln at the most prestigious position. Its layout is spectacular; Lincoln sits on high, looking out over a long reflecting pool, to the strongest branch of government – Congress. Lincoln is rewarded and glorified because he is the president who achieved the most in transforming the government into one of great power and influence and coercion over its independent parts (the States). Lincoln, in a sense, destroyed the ideals that inspired our founding generation to fight for their independence.

The Jefferson Memorial directly faces the White House – the home of our President and Chief Executive. The White House does not face the Lincoln Memorial.  Could it be that this lay-out was intended to remind Presidents of Jefferson’s ideals and the principles of government outlined in the Declaration?  Could it be that the president of the United States should forever be reminded that government is not a tool of an ambitious president (as it was for Abraham Lincoln) but rather an institution which serves the people and their interests in life, liberty, and happiness.

Something to think about.

What I can say is that when I listened to Donald Trump’s inaugural address – and particularly the part when he announced: “Every four years we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power….  Today’s ceremony, however, has a 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 people.”  — I couldn’t help but smile and think to myself how Jeffersonian he sounded.

Maybe, at least for the next few years, we can enjoy a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Maybe Trump, in fact, gets it.

by Diane Rufino, February 25, 2017

Although we are on the verge of having President Obama’s signature piece of legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka, “Obamacare”) repealed and replaced, I am writing this piece to remind folks of the loss of freedom we suffered at the hands of President Obama and his administration with the unconstitutional and universal healthcare scheme he misrepresented and then forced on the American people.

The assault on the precious liberties of the American people were realized by only a handful (and certainly not the liberal members of the Supreme Court) and to half of these, it didn’t matter. When I talk about those who could care less, I am referring to the Republican members of Congress, who for years seemed unable to craft legislation or summon a vote.

Certainly, the caliber of an “American” has changed. We should all shutter for the future of our republic and for the security of the liberties our forefathers fought a revolution for. The debacle known as Obamacare has shown that they are never secure in the face of a hostile president who uses a “phone and a pen” and secret meetings to pressure legislation that that are violative of them.

Yes, it would be wonderful for everyone to have healthcare insurance to help them with their healthcare costs. It would be great if insurance didn’t make it cost prohibitive for those with pre-existing conditions. It would be great if times were like they were many years ago when everyone went to school, took their education seriously, got a job, and took care of themselves and their families. But jobs are scarce and people willing to invest in themselves and look for a job are even scarcer. It would be great if people took stock of their health and avoided tobacco, drugs, and fattening foods so that they are not obese and prone to diabetes and heart disease and therefore put an enormous strain on our healthcare system, but they don’t.

Yes, there are poor people out there. Some are poor because of a legitimate situation but most are poor because of a mindset and lifestyle choice. Some complain about being poor but don’t want a job; they merely want to be made more comfortable in poverty, which the Democratic Party is all-too-happy to do. Dependents make the most loyal voters. Why would anyone want to set an alarm to get up early every morning, worry about shuffling their kids to daycare, deal with traffic on the roads, put up with bullshit at work, put up with a horrible boss, have to show up even when they don’t feel well, strive to earn a decent performance evaluation just to hopefully be able to take home the same amount of money the following year, stress out about whether he or she has job security, balance work with other parenting obligations (such as when children get sick), and deal with limited days off when they could stay home, sleep late, get a welfare check from the government, have their apartments paid for, heating and air-conditioning paid for, food paid for, daycare covered (even though they aren’t working), a free cell phone, and free healthcare. Why do they need to work? Why would they even want to work?

American used to produce things. Americans used to be productive citizens. They were ambitious, resourceful, proud. Our government programs are creating the human waste and decay that is beginning to define America and destroy our cities, our schools, and our ability to live contently amongst each other. How can one group of Americans, who work hard, raise their families responsibly, pay their taxes and then find out that those exceedingly high taxes are going to pay for others and their families, have any respect for the latter? They don’t. They don’t look at them as equals.

But there is a constitutional way to solve problems and there is an unconstitutional way to solve them. And that’s why it is so important to vet presidential candidates for their constitutional character and not make choices based on skin color or social justice.

And so, a lesson taught so well that it inspired a revolution has been lost on today’s generation of Americans. And that lesson was to never yield individual liberties to the designs of government, even if those designs are well-intentioned. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficient… The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

The lesson of the Boston Tea Party, an act of civil disobedience and protest that inspired today’s Sons of Liberty movement (the Tea Party), is an important and timeless lesson.

On the night of December 16,1773, members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians, boarded three ships in the Boston harbor, and tossed 342 chests of tea overboard. They did this to protest the Tea Act. The Tea Act was actually not so bad in its provisions – it provided a high-quality tea, at lower costs than the colonists had been used to, and at a lower tax than what they had been previously used to. So why were the colonists so upset?

The Tea Act of 1773 was a follow-up to the Revenue Act, which was one of the laws in the hugely unpopular Townshend Acts. The Townshend Acts set new import duties (taxes) on British goods including paint, paper, lead, glass and tea. Due to protests from British merchants, whose trade was seriously effected by the American colonists refusing to buy the goods, Parliament ultimately repealed all of the duties (taxes) – except the tax on tea.

The principal objective of the Tea Act was to reduce the massive amount of tea held by the financially-troubled British East India Company in its London warehouses and to help the struggling company survive and to do so, it created a monopoly on the sale of tea to the colonies to the East India Company. It allowed the East India company to sell its large tea surplus below the prices charged by colonial competitors and thus under-cut and threatened local tea merchants. It was able to sell its tea at lower prices because the Act granted the Company the right to ship its tea directly to North America from its China warehouses (without first stopping at Britain to pay export duties). However, as mentioned earlier, the tea imposed on the colonies was still subject to the tea tax under the Revenue Act.

Specifically, the Tea Act provided:

1. Tea could be shipped in East India Company ships directly from China to the American colonies, thus avoiding the tax on goods first due England, as required by previous legislation.

2. A duty (tax) of 3 pence per pound was to be collected on tea delivered to America. [The previous duty (tax) was 12 pence (1 shilling) per pound, which was paid on tax which had been sent from Britain, so colonists would be paying LESS in tea tax with this Act. Also, interestingly, they would be getting their tea cheaper than the people of Britain !!].

3. The tea would be marketed and forced on colonists by special consignees (receivers of shipments) who would be selected by the East India Tea Company.

The new import tax of 3 pence was considerably less than the previous tea tax on the colonists, in which 12 pence (1 shilling) per pound on tea sent via Britain, so colonists would be paying LESS in tea tax with the Tea Act of 1773. Also, interestingly, they would be getting their tea cheaper than the people of Britain !! Even King George III was reported to comment that “the colonists will finally be happy!” and will stop protesting.

The Act also encouraged British agents to seek out local merchants of tea who were smuggling in tea (in violation of the new law) and shut down their operations. In effect, they were making sure the monopoly on tea was complete and that colonists were buying only the tea that the British Parliament were forcing on them.

While the average contemporary American might look at the bottom dollar and assess the law based on their pocketbook and conclude that the Tea Act was good and fair, our founding generation looked at the insidious violations to their fundamental liberties embedded in this seemingly harmless law.

First of all, the Tea Act forced the colonists to purchase Company tea on which the Townshend duties were paid, thus implicitly asserting Parliament’s right of taxation. Even though the costs and the taxes were lowered, they would not back down on their demand that there be “No Taxation Without Representation!” This basic English right was secured in the Magna Carta of 1215 and re-asserted over and over again up until the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which essentially transferred government power from the King to the peoples’ house – Parliament. And second, the Tea Act compelled the colonists to buy a product identified by a legislative body far away. It took away their right to enjoy competition and to pursue livelihoods.

If men like Sam Adams, John Hancock, James Otis Jr., Paul Revere were alive today, they would have called out Obamacare for violations similar to those in the Tea Act. They wouldn’t be complaining about the increased premiums or the frustration in signing up for healthcare… they would be sounding the alarm to government compulsion and unconstitutional taxation.

Let’s hope that when Obamacare is repealed it will be replaced by a scheme that divests the federal government of compulsion power over the American people and returns power to the free market system. And let’s help educate our lesser-informed members of society that those who are all too happy to receive hand-outs from the government are the most insidious threats to the very liberty upon which our country was founded. “A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety,” wrote John Stuart Mill, “is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

by Diane Rufino, April 23, 2017

During the September 26, 2016 presidential debate, candidate Hillary Clinton hinted that her opponent, Donald Trump, was hiding something by not releasing his taxes. Who can forget her attack: “You’ve gotta ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be. Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told, through investigative reporting that, he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes. Because the only years that anybody has ever seen, were a couple of years where he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license. And they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.”  Most of us shook our heads at the audacity of the likes of Hillary Clinton, a serial liar, cheat, intimidation expert, and lawbreaker, and known roundly for her lack of ethics, morals, and decency (particularly in a so-called charitable organization, the Clinton Foundation, which turned out to be a sham or front for her own campaign financing)

When Trump’s 2005 tax returns were inappropriately leaked (the smear campaign against Donald Trump already in full swing), Rachel Maddow, and MSNBC, couldn’t wait to treat their rabid progressive audience to what they were sure was evidence of a tax-evader. And so, on air, Maddow, filled with the kind of exuberance that only liberals and progressives are capable of – in anticipation of destroying the reputation of a hardworking, patriotic, conservative family man, exposed Trump’s tax results.

The only thing….  Trump’s tax returns weren’t at all what she, or the left, were expecting. Not only did Trump not escape paying taxes, but he paid a higher rate than the likes of Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama. The Obamas paid an effective tax rate of only 18.7% in 2015. Bernie Sanders paid a federal tax rate of only 13.5% in 2014. Ironically, Comcast, the parent of MSNBC, paid a tax rate of only 24% from 2008 through 2012, less than Trump’s 2005 effective rate of roughly 25.3%. Trump paid $38 million in taxes on an income of $150 million.

Back in 1995, Trump had serious financial issues. We know this because of another “inappropriate” leak of Trump’s tax returns. In fact, by the early 1990’s, Trump was hemorrhaging money and was on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. He was heading toward personal bankruptcy as a result of a series of misguided investments and mismanagement of his company in the late 1980’s which ended up forcing him to borrow money from his family. Trump suffered a staggering loss of $916 million in 1995 – enough to allow him to take advantage of a tax law which would permit him to avoid paying income taxes for 18 years.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton and her campaign strategists took a gamble on this information, using it to make the bold accusation that Trump wasn’t releasing his tax returns because he wasn’t in fact, paying taxes. This, of course, begs the follow-up: She must have been given this information in advance; someone must have leaked information to her and the campaign prior to its release through the news that Trump suffered such devastating losses that surely he was exempt from paying federal income tax. Was that Hillary’s “October surprise”?

Trump’s tax information was leaked to the New York Times; it was received by an “anonymous” package in the mail. It then made it to Maddow and to all other news outlets. Those who gleefully exposed it, hoping it would embarrass and harm Trump’s legitimacy for the presidency, suffered ridicule and embarrassment themselves. We enjoyed watching them with egg on their faces.

Indeed, Trump’s near-billion-dollar loss in 1995 might have been the single biggest net operating loss in the country that year, amounting to almost 2 percent of the total “net operating losses” reported by all American taxpayers who used the same tax provision as Trump.

Sure, Donald Trump did not pay federal income tax in 1995, and perhaps even a few years after that. But as the leaked 2005 tax return shows, he chose NOT to take advantage of a tax law that Congress itself put into the IRS code to enjoy relief from taxes for nearly two decades.

That speaks to the man that is Donald Trump.

Trump may not be as good a businessman as he claims nor as rich, but he is clearly an honest-enough taxpayer and loyal American who believes that if he has made money in this country, he is obligated to pay taxes and not shift the burden to the middle class to pay the taxes he should. He doesn’t have the intuition of a Hillary Clinton to break and skirt the law, nor the audacity of a Bernie Sanders, who paid minimal while being quite rich.

This story goes to show one thing —  Liberals and Democrats are so happy to go after conservatives and Republicans for character assassination. All too often, as in this case, we find the charges to be baseless or trumped up (couldn’t resist!) and in the end, we find that, by comparison, liberals and Democrats are guilty of far worse and have gotten away with it.

Maybe the American people will begin to take accusations by the left a little less seriously, maybe they will begin to note the glaring hypocrisy, and maybe – just maybe – they will give President Donald Trump a chance to help the American people, as a whole, and to Make America Great Again !!

References:
Daniel John Sobieski, “Rogue IRS Felons Vindicate Trump,” American Thinker, March 16, 2917.  Referenced at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/rogue_irs_felons_vindicate_trump.html

Abigail Tracy, “Trump’s Financial Troubles in the Early 1990’s Were Even Worse Than Anyone Thought,” Vanity Fair, October 4, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-financial-troubles-taxes-1990s

David Barstow, Russ Bruettner, Susanne Craig, and Megan Twohey, “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades,” The New York Times, November 2, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Adam Liptak, “Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns,” The New York Times, March 15, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-legal-precedent.html

  by Diane Rufino, April 19, 2017

“The Obama administration and its fronts in the Senate accomplished what Richard Nixon wasn’t able to accomplish, which was the suppression of an entire movement against him. That’s how you steal an election; you make sure your political opponents can’t open an office.”  —  Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has sued the IRS to obtain documents related to the controversy

From 2010 until 2013, the IRS, under President Barack Obama, intentionally targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups applying for 501(c) tax-exemption by delaying the processing of their applications, requesting burdensome information from them that was later deemed unnecessary, and by intimidating them into withdrawing their applications. The scheme was intended to intimidate and/or stop Tea Party and other conservative groups from engaging in political activity in the 2012 presidential election and in subsequent mid-term elections. The abuse by the IRS was orchestrated in response to the growing Tea Party/ conservative/ grassroots movement (which all of a sudden were applying in great numbers for tax-exempt organization status and which were donating in large amounts to Republican candidates and elections). The actions of the government, spearheaded by President Obama, were a clear example of government tyranny – using terror and intimidation (the full resources of the federal government) to silence political opposition.

As Rep. Darrell Issa and Rep. Jim Jordan of the House Oversight Committee explained in a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koshinen: “This revelation that the IRS sent 1.1 million pages of nonprofit tax-return data — including confidential taxpayer information — to the FBI confirms suspicions that the IRS worked with the Justice Department to facilitate the potential investigation of nonprofit groups engaged in lawful political speech.”

To date, and there is no surprise here, the IRS and its officials, have escaped justice and punishment. Its aggressive 3-year campaign against conservative grassroots organizations to suppress their first amendment rights of speech, expression, and assembly, and its illegal leaking of private tax information for political purposes, and its turning of the executive branch of the federal government into a thug ring for the Democratic Party has been explained away as mere incompetency and a lack of proper oversight.

The fact that Lois Lerner escaped prison, that records were destroyed in a campaign to obstruct justice and allow other guilty parties to escape punishment, and that John Koskinen retain his job as the IRS commissioner are scandals in and of themselves. Last fall, House Republicans took steps to have John Koskinen removed by impeaching him for his role in covering up Lerner’s crimes, his misleading a congressional investigation, his obstruction of Congress (defying a subpoena), and outright lying to Congress. Unfortunately, on December 6, House GOP leaders managed to derail impeachment, forcing the debate back to a committee for more study, where it silently died when Congress adjourned at the end of the year.

While most believe the scandal and the government abuse subsided in 2013 when the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released an audit report concluded that the IRS had in fact used inappropriate criteria to identify, target, and then harass Tea Party and other conservative organizations in their applications for 501(c) tax-exempt status, the fact is that the IRS continued to improperly use its power to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and apparently still has hold-over rogue elements from the Obama administration who are secretly trying to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency. How else could Donald Trump’s tax returns have been leaked?  How else was it possible that Trump’s 1995 tax information was leaked during the 2016 presidential election season to Clinton’s team, just in time for the presidential debates? How can we forget her accusation and then the ensuing political pressure from the media for Trump to release his tax returns.  Remember what she said in the September 2016 debate;  “You’ve gotta ask yourself, why won’t he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he’s not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he’s not as charitable as he claims to be. Third, we don’t know all of his business dealings, but we have been told, through investigative reporting that, he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes. Because the only years that anybody has ever seen, were a couple of years where he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license. And they showed he didn’t pay any federal income tax.”

And how was it that an “anonymous” package with Trump’s 2005 tax return and tax info was mailed to the New York Times in early March?  [See my article “How Quickly Trump’s Tax Return Story Has Disappeared,” April 23, 2017].  Someone at the IRS, apparently still having the capability of treating it as a rogue agency, committed a felony. And Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, who received the tax returns from the Times and who was salivating over the chance to humiliate Trump, chose to insinuate that our President was the criminal and not the felon from the federal government.

Why do I suggest that the “leaked” tax information during the presidential campaign season and the anonymous package to the NY Times containing Trump’s 2005 tax return came from a rogue element still entrenched in the IRS?  Oh geeeezz, let me see…   All one needs to do is recall the 2012 targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups by the IRS for the purpose of reelecting President Obama.  The thought of someone at the agency doing a similar favor for Obama’s successor doesn’t seem so far-fetched. The tendency to hold on to power is natural.  Machiavelli explained this to us. The link between the IRS and Trump’s leaked tax returns is persuasive.

Furthermore, the history and modus operandi of both Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner, head of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS and mastermind of the Tea Party targeting scandal, appear very similar similar….  break rules, skirt the law, and then destroy evidence by deleting emails and destroying hard drives and servers. It’s a Democrat thing.  They benefit from the lawbreaking but escape justice by destroying evidence, which is itself a crime. Both used their positions in government not to genuinely and constitutionally serve the legitimate interests of the American people in general, but rather to advance personal and/or political goals. Lerner targeted the Tea Party. And Hillary collected lots of money by making personal deals while as Secretary of State to enrich her presidential campaign.  And then she had officials of the government “provide” her with ammunition (Trump’s tax returns) to beat Donald Trump.  Both “lost” or destroyed the emails that would have proven their crimes.

The New York Times says “someone” sent the documents to a reporter so it has no criminal liability in publishing it. Constitutional law is fairly firm on this point. But as a lawyer, I find that at times it fails to pass the “smell test.” In other words, the policy sometimes stinks!!  How is an ordinary citizen supposed to reconcile this reality:  “If a private citizen receives stolen property, they go to jail.  But if a reporter receives stolen documents, they receive the Pulitzer Prize.”  [Daniel John Sobieski, “Rogue IRS Felons Vindicate Trump.” American Thinker]. To the very end, the Obama administration, through the officials he put in place, used the power of the federal government for strictly political purposes – for the purpose of assassinating the character of a presidential candidate, helping Hillary Clinton win the election, and to further entrench the agenda of the Democratic party in government. The IRS had never ceased serving as the nefarious arm of the political left to target conservatives and lessen their chances in the political arena. And even as a new administration is taking over the federal government, Obama officials still in remaining at the agency are using the same power to obstruct the efforts of a legitimately-elected president of another (an opposing) political party.

Think about this –  Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for president, continued to receive the highest levels of support from the government (including control of the media and access to illegally-disclosed confidential information) even after she had abused that government’s power and prestige and had clearly broken many of the laws put in place to provide transparency to the American people. And, the President of the United States and the Democratic Party (the party having full control and power in government) co-opted all the functions, resources, and instrumentalities of t government, and their influence/pressure as well, in order to help her and to interfere in the campaign of a presidential candidate that threatened their power. It wasn’t the Russians. It was the Obama administration itself.  If this isn’t the definition of government tyranny or the definition of government corruption, I don’t know what is.

It’s about time the American people learned the true extent to which the government had turned on them, had violated their precious liberties, sought to target and silence them, and threatened their voice in government.  This investigation is necessary so that We the People, and conservative watchdog groups, can seek protections to make sure it never happens again.

We exercise the First Amendment so that we don’t have to exercise the Second !!

INTRO — 

We all know how fundamental the rights of conscience, religion, and speech are.  The rights of conscience and religion are the beginnings of thought.  Speech is how we express that thought.

More than that, from a liberty point of view, it is our first amendment right that protects all the others by giving voice and publication when government violates them. It alerts the People to weigh for themselves how much they value their rights and liberties. And then it is the second amendment that ultimately secures all other rights from tyranny in government.

In the IRS scandal, we had the Obama administration using the IRS as a tool of terror, of intimidation to silence the Tea Party –  his party’s political opposition. In theory and practice, it was much like Hitler and his gestapo. Political speech was frozen by government action, first and foremost, and then there were the Tea Party groups and folks who self-censored for fear of having the IRS target them, audit them, and god-forbid come up with some trumped-up charge to make their lives a living hell, fine them, or imprison them.

Why?  Because he was working to win the 2012 election for himself and his party and to win mid-term elections.  In fact, documents released just last week by Judicial Watch confirm that President Obama’s IRS improperly targeted conservatives in order to help him win the 2012 presidential election.

On April 14, 2015, Judicial Watch announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the IRS seeking “any and all records” related to the selection of both individuals and organizations for audits based upon applications filed requesting nonprofit tax status.

Political speech and expression is the most protectable form of speech; it was intended to help We the People flesh out ideas, assess honestly and fully what the government is doing, figure out which candidates are best to govern on our behalf, and to see that government operates as best and as responsibly as possible from our end. Our Founding Fathers appreciated the importance of protected political speech from the lessons taught throughout the colorful history of England. We can never forget that the government is OUR government and not the government of a political party. It operates on us, as individuals, in our lives, our property, our revenue, our liberty, and in our ability to live freely. Political parties are merely political organizations looking for power, not human results.

THE IRS and TAX-EXEMPTION —

US federal tax law, specifically Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), exempts certain types of nonprofit organizations from having to pay federal income tax. The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare“. Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization “is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements.” As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization’s primary activity.

TIMELINE of the IRS SCANDAL —

(1)  On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) is a U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.

All of a sudden, non-profit groups could spend money to engage in political activity and to influence elections. At the time, the Tea Party movement had just taken off, and:

• Most of the applications to the IRS for tax-exempt 501(c) status were conservative groups, and
• Most of the money pouring into TV and radio ads to influence elections were from conservative groups to benefit Republican candidates

(2)  Beginning in March 2010, when the Tea Party movement was the rage, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under sections 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names. IRS staffers began flagging applications from groups with politically themed names like “We the People” and “Take Back the Country.” Staffers also targeted groups whose names included the words “Tea Party,” “patriots,” and “912” (a movement started by Glenn Beck). Those flagged applications were then sent to specialists for a more rigorous review than is typical. (This info, this timeline, came from a draft report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, May 2013).

In May 2010, some employees of the “Determinations Unit” of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the “Be On the Look Out” (“BOLO”) list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to a number of political causes, including names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in Ohio, California, and Washington, DC applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:

• referenced words such as “Tea Party“, “Patriots”, or “9/12 Project“, “progressive,” “occupy,” “Israel,” “open source software,” “medical marijuana” and “occupied territory advocacy” in the case file;^[34][35]
• outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
• involved advocating or lobbying to “make America a better place to live”;
• had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run;
• advocated education about theConstitution and the Bill of Rights;
• were focused on challenging thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act—known by many as Obamacare;
• questioned the integrity of federal elections.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, there was an increase of applications for 501(c) tax-exempt status – from 1,500 applications to more than double that amount, 3,400.  The government (controlled by Democrats) took notice.  The IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with “Tea Party”, “patriots”, or “9/12” in their names. While apparently none of these organizations’ applications were denied during this period, only 4 were approved. During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as “progressive”, “progress”, “liberal”, or “equality.  Only 3 groups were targeted had the word “occupy” in their name.

Tea Party groups targeted by the IRS for scrutiny and delay were forced to provide such information as:

• Names, addresses, and emails of all their members
• Names, addresses, and emails of everyone who has ever attended any of their meetings
• The names of the donors, contributors, and grantors. If the donor, contributor, or grantor has run or will run for a public office, identify the office. If not, please confirm by answering this question “No”.
• The amounts of each of the donations, contributions, and grants and the dates you received them.
• How did the group use these donations, contributions, and grants. Provide Details.
• A copy of every presentation given by every speaker at their meetings
• A copy of the flyer or announcement for each meeting
• Copies of all materials passed out at all meetings
• Biographies of every speaker at their meetings
• “Provide the following information for the income you received and raised for the years from inception to the present. Also, provide the same information for the income you expect to receive and raise for 2012, 2013, and 2014.”
• Copies of any contracts the group is a party to
• Copies of all training materials the group has used or will use with the Koch Foundation
• Copies of stories and articles that have been published about the organization and/or any of its members.

Organizations were told that if the information was not provided, they would not be certified as “tax-exempt.”  And even if all the information was provided, the IRS would scrutinize it and further delay the application by following up with probing questions. For example, The Coalition for Life of Iowa, a pro-life group, was asked to “Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood are considered educational as defined under 501(c)(3). Please explain in detail the activities at these prayer meetings. Also, please provide the percentage of time your group spends on prayer groups as compared with other activities of the organization.”

(3)  In June 2011, Lois Lerner, Director of the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), reportedly became aware of what was going on and directed staffers to change to how they vetted nonprofit applications.

(4)  By the spring of 2012, so many conservative groups had complained about the IRS harassing them that Republicans in Congress took notice. Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.) sent the IRS a letter asking why it was targeting Tea partiers, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) held a hearing in which he grilled then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, a George W. Bush appointee, over the agency’s treatment of conservative groups. Shulman denied that his agency was targeting conservatives, and the controversy remained quiet until Lerner’s apology (in May; see below).

(5)  In early May 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Michael McKenney, released a preliminary audit report confirming that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify potential political cases, including organizations with Tea Party in their names. The final report would be released on May 14.

(6)  On May 10, in advance of the public release of the audit findings, Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations division of the IRS, Lois Lerner, “apologized” for what she termed were “absolutely inappropriate” actions by the IRS. She would then blame the actions on lower-ranked employees out of a Cincinnati office.

(7)  On May 12, Republican and Democratic lawmakers called for a full investigation of the IRS. At a  press conference the next day, President Obama called the charges “outrageous” if true, and said those responsible should be held accountable.  On May 14, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the Justice Department to begin an investigation as to whether the conduct amounted to criminal behavior.

(8)  The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found gross violations. His investigation found that of the 296 total conservative non-profit applications reviewed in the audit conduct in December 2012, no work at all was conducted on them for at least 13 months. Of those 296 applications, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant because of frustration and seeming harassment, none had been denied, and 160 were left open – without moving them forward – for more than three years and spanning two election cycles, During that time, the organizations were hit with burdensome questions and numerous requests for more information.

Clearly, the IRS was abusing its power.  Clearly, the Obama administration was abusing its government power to silence political opposition.

(9)  In early May, following the Inspector General’s report, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-OH), began an investigation into the IRS. Additionally, the House Committee on Ways and Means expanded its ongoing 2011 investigation into possible IRS political targeting.

On May 22, 2013, in her opening statement to the Oversight Committee, Lois Lerner stated: “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” Lerner then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to testify.

House Republicans dismissed Lerner’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment as ineffective, with chairman Issa (R- OH) stating: “You don’t get to use a public hearing to tell the public and press your side of the story and then invoke the Fifth.”  Democrats characterized the contempt proceeding as a “witch hunt” geared toward the 2014 midterm elections.

(10)  In June 2013, the IRS revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. In other words, they were intentionally targeting conservative groups – particularly ones with the name “Tea Party” or “Patriot” or “912” in their name. It admitted that it improperly frustrated and held up their applications. Judicial Watch has recently confirmed (thanks to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act) that the targeting began in 2010.

(11)  In August 2013, Democratic congressman Chris Van Hollen (Md) filed suit against the IRS seeking to overturn a rule that had been on the books since 1959 which allowed social welfare groups to engage in political activity. For 54 years, the IRS has respected that rule and has allowed 501(c)(4) groups to engage in political activity, as long as it wasn’t their primary mission. That rule has been widely interpreted as allowing such tax-exempt groups to spend 49% of their money on politics — without disclosing where that money came from.

It was this 1959 IRS rule that was at the center of Tea Party scandal.

However, more insidiously, the law suit had a lot to do with the greater flexibility granted to groups to engage in political expression with the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.. This case overturned many previous restrictions on political campaign spending and allowed nearly unlimited and often anonymous spending by corporations and other groups to influence elections. Some Tea Party leaders began forming political action committees as offshoots of their 501(c)-tax-exempt organizations –  501(c)(4) groups – to spend money to influence elections or at least to become politically involved.

So, in 2012, Obama won re-election, although very narrowly.  Tea Party groups were actively speaking out against Obamacare and his bail-out policies, and everything else. And now they have been empowered to continue being active, by the Citizens united decision. Tea Party groups started raising money and pouring money into what is called “anonymous politics” –  not being part of the Republican or Democratic parties. Ordinary citizens, exercising their right of political expression in groups (where there is more power than being exercised at the individual level).

In September 2010, it was reported by The New York Times that almost all of the biggest players among third-party groups, in terms of buying television time in House and Senate races since August of that year, have been 501(c) organizations, and their purchases have heavily favored Republicans….     Remember, the Tea Party movement essentially started in 2009 – 2010.  [CNBC’s Rick Santelli was on the floor of Chicago’s mercantile exchange in Feb. 2009, ranting about the government’s bail-out policy and announced: He urged all capitalists to join him to start a new Tea Party movement].

Between 2010 and 2012, the number of applications the IRS received each year seeking 501(c)(4) certification doubled, many being Tea Party groups and other conservative groups. Democrats became worried. By early 2012, House and Senate Democrats started pressuring the IRS to scrutinize 501(c) non-profit applications and make sure they aren’t seeking the status to engage in political activity.

Van Hollen, who was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, by filing the lawsuit sought to force the IRS to draft new rules requiring that the tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups strictly comply with the section of the IRS code that requires such groups to be “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.”  Van Hollen and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sought to limit conservative 501(c) non-profit groups from pouring money into political campaigns.

Apparently, Van Hollen didn’t like how Democrats were responding to the emerging scandal which had just broken 2 months earlier and was hoping to emphasize the point that under the Obama administration, the IRS was merely trying to resolve the legal issues surrounding political activities by tax-exempt groups and return to the intention of the IRS code for tax exemption – to further social work.

Jay Sekulow and his American Center for Law & Justice, represented 41 Tea Party groups and sued the IRS over what he called “Political Targeting.” He said that Van Hollen’s agenda raises “serious First Amendment issues.”

Sekulow said: “Political speech is protected by the First Amendment.  Anonymous pamphleteering is as old as our country, and deserves just as much constitutional protection.”  He also said: “If Van Hollen wants to change the code, he should do that through the legislative process” and not try to by-pass the rightful branch, the legislative branch, by going to the improper branch, the judicial branch (or the federal courts).

(12)  On January 15, 2014, the FBI announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the affair. The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting” of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. The officials indicated, however, that the investigation would continue.

Disturbingly, in February, while the investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) was ongoing, President Obama stated there was “not a smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS.

(13)  On April 9, the House Committee on Ways and Means voted to send a letter to the Department of Justice referring former IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois G. Lerner for criminal prosecution. The Committee’s nearly three-year investigation uncovered evidence of willful misconduct on the part of Ms. Lerner.   In particular, the Committee found that Ms. Lerner used her position to improperly influence IRS action against conservative organizations, denying these groups due process and equal protection rights under the law.  The Committee also found she impeded official investigations by providing misleading statements in response to questions from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.  Finally, Lerner risked exposing, and it was actually alleged (even in a lawsuit) that she did expose, confidential taxpayer information, in apparent violation of IRS section 6103 by using her personal email to conduct official business.

(14)  Two months later, on June 13, the IRS notified Republican congressional investigators that it had lost Lerner’s emails from January 2009 to April 2011 because of a mid-2011 computer crash.  The emails were under subpoena as part of the congressional investigation. June 19, the IRS said that the damaged hard drive containing Lerner’s missing emails had been disposed of more than two years prior.

On July 9, 2014, Republicans released an April 13, 2013 email from Lerner in which she cautioned colleagues to “be cautious about what we say in emails.”

(15)  On September 5, the IRS said it lost additional emails of five workers under congressional investigation, blaming computer crashes. These five workers include two people based in Cincinnati who worked on Tea Party cases.  According to the IRS, the crashes all predate congressional investigations and had occurred between September 2009 and February 2014.

(16)  On September 5, 2014, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released its report on the scandal, finding that inappropriate screening criteria were definitely used but concluded that there was no intentional wrongdoing or political bias in the use of the criteria.  A few months later, in December, Chairman Issa released a new report that found that “the IRS’s inability to keep politics out of objective decisions about interpretation of the tax code damaged its primary function: an apolitical tax collector that Americans can trust to treat them fairly.”

(17)  In January 2015, the US Senate requested that the White House produce all communications it has had with the IRS since 2010.

(18)  On August 5, 2015, the Senate Finance Committee released a report that concluded that management at the IRS had been “delinquent in its responsibility to provide effective control, guidance, and direction over the processing of applications for tax-exempt status filed by Tea Party and other political advocacy organizations” and that it was only guilty of poor planning and oversight.

(19)  In October 2015, the Justice Department notified Congress that there would be no charges against the former IRS official Lois Lerner or against anyone else in the IRS. The investigation found no evidence of illegal activity or the partisan targeting of political groups and found that no IRS official attempted to obstruct justice. The DOJ investigation did find evidence of mismanagement and Lerner’s poor judgement in using her IRS account for personal messages but said “poor management is not a crime.”

(20)  Four days after the Justice Department closed its investigation, 19 members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee led by the Committee’s Chairman, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), filed a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Those sponsoring the impeachment resolution to remove Koskinen from office accused him of failing to prevent the destruction of evidence in allowing the erasure of back-up tapes containing thousands of e-mails written by Lois Lerner, and of making false statements under oath to Congress. In a statement released by the Committee, Chaffetz said Koskinen “failed to comply with a congressionally issued subpoena, documents were destroyed on his watch, and the public was consistently misled. Impeachment is the appropriate tool to restore public confidence in the IRS and to protect the institutional interests of Congress.”

(21)  Last month, as part of an ongoing investigation into the IRS scandal and an ongoing inquiry by Judicial Watch, the government released names of 426 organizations which had been improperly targeted by the IRS because of their politics. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit. That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ Inspector General identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long and potentially illegal delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities.

(22)  Courts have already ruled against the IRS.  For example, in 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals did so and noted in its ruling: “501(c)(4) groups may not collect tax-deductible donations, but they may engage in relatively unfettered political advocacy, including election advocacy. 501(c)(4) groups range from national organizations—including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club—to local neighborhood associations.”

(23)  There has been a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch and its investigation into the scandal continues. It has just received almost 700 pages of documents (61% redacted) under the Freedom of Information Act which proves the scheme by the Obama administration to target Tea Party groups into silence and inactivity in political elections. Its current lawsuit is seeking at least 7000 pages of documents related to the IRS scandal that have been hidden from Congress and the American people. The IRS, under the Obama administration, intentionally sought to restrict Tea Party activity and especially in political elections.

Responding to the lawsuit, Thomas Kane, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for the IRS, wrote in a sworn declaration that Lerner’s Blackberry was “removed or wiped clean of any sensitive or proprietary information and removed as scrap for disposal in June 2012.”   In a USA Today opinion column, James S. Robbins wrote, “For a scandal that is frequently derided as ‘fake,’ it is amazing how often real evidence disappears. The disappearing act is so frequent, it is reasonable to wonder whether it is really a systematic attempt to destroy evidence of abuse of power.”

(24)  The current US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has been asked by Congressional Republicans to re-evaluate the evidence against the IRS and against Lois Lerner and re-open the investigation.  At present, Sessions seems noncommittal on the matter.  Taxpayers deserve to know that the DOJ’s previous evaluation was not tainted by politics. 

TARGETING POLICIAL OPPOSITION IS TYRANNY –

The IRS scandal was egregious and conservatives should be enraged. I would say all Americans should be enraged but judging from the conduct of Democrats, they seem to be fine with anything that shuts up a conservative – even if it means denying their basic constitutional rights.  But an assault on the rights of one group in the end will be an assault on everyone’s rights down the road. Looking the other way while the government violates the rights of certain citizens is a dangerous thing. Allowing the government to get away with it is worse.  Allowing the government to silence political opposition is to put our free society at risk.

As President Harry Truman once warned: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”  [In a Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]

References:

Audit Report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review.”  Referenced at:  https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.html

Diane Rufino, “How Quickly Trump’s Tax Return Story Has Disappeared,”  Forloveofgodandcountry blog, April 23, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2017/04/23/how-quickly-the-trump-tax-return-story-has-disappeared/

IRS Targeting Controversy, Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

“The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Another Court Ruling Confirms IRS Illegally Targeted Tea Party and Conservative Groups,” CEI.org, November 21, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://cei.org/blog/another-court-ruling-confirms-irs-illegally-targeted-tea-party-and-conservative-groups

Andy Kroll, “The IRS Tea Party Scandal Explained,” Mother Jones, November 21, 2013.  Referenced:  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-scandal-congress-nonprofit-obama

Stephen Dinan and Seth McLaughlin, “House Republicans Derail Impeachment Effort Against IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, IRS Commissioner,” The Washington Times, December 6, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/6/john-koskinen-irs-commissioner-spared-impeachment-/

David Barstow, Russ Bruettner, Susanne Craig, and Megan Twohey, “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades,” The New York Times, November 2, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

Adam Liptak, “Is It Illegal to Publish a President’s Tax Returns,” The New York Times, March 15, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-legal-precedent.html

Daniel John Sobieski, “Rogue IRS Felons Vindicate Trump,” American Thinker, March 16, 2917.  Referenced at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/rogue_irs_felons_vindicate_trump.html

by Diane Rufino, May 20, 2017

George Washington once warned: “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”   Indeed, the first and most essential principle of a free society is allowing its citizens to have a free flow of words in an open forum.

The First Amendment

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

The first phrase of the amendment controls the language of the entire amendment:  “Congress shall make no law….

Then it explains how Congress cannot regulate five things:

• Religion (It cannot make a law establishing an official national, government-sanctioned religion, NOR can it pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of one’s religion
• Speech
• Press
• Assembly (peaceful assembly)
• Petition government

These 5 things are considered essential to individual liberty and to a free society (“Ordered Liberty”)

Now, Liberty is understood by our Founders to be the extent to which one can freely exercise his or her rights – without burdening another’s free exercise in his or her rights.

The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress, which convened in New York City in March 1789.  The anti-Federalists forced James Madison to provide a Bill of Rights to amend the US Constitution that was drafted at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and adopted in 1788 by the requisite number of states – 9 (as per Article VII).  The Bill of Rights (our first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was later ratified on December 15, 1791 and had, as its primary purpose, to provide express limits to government power as it relates to the individual. In fact, the preamble to the Bill of Rights (which everyone should read and memorize) reads:

“In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of government powers, the Conventions of a number of the States, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire to add further declaratory and restrictive clauses. Such further restrictions will increase public confidence in the federal government and will best insure the beneficent ends of that institution.”

****  This is why we say that the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant us our rights; it protects them. The federal government is one of limited powers and on top of that, it is prohibited from legislating or otherwise regulating the fundamental rights and civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The purpose of free speech is to encourage individuals to contribute their ideas and opinions to others – to put them out there in the so-called “marketplace of ideas.”

The metaphor “marketplace of ideas” is based on a market economy – on free exchange in the market. In such a market, many products are available and we, as rational (and hopefully, fairly informed and intelligent) consumers, choose freely what we want from among those available after careful comparison and after careful weighing of their relative quality. 

Free Speech makes every person who wishes to convey a thought, an idea, an opinion a competitor in the marketplace of ideas. Each speaker – whether it is vocal, visual, on paper, or on the internet, bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas.  The true test of the thought or idea or opinion is how strongly it is accepted in that marketplace.

Because the contribution to the marketplace of ideas is considered so important, we don’t want to inhibit peoples’ right to do so. How else are we able to discuss what our government is doing and determine if it is bad or good… Right or wrong?  How else are we able to determine which candidates are best able to serve us in government?  And that’s why we have the First Amendment’s Guarantee of Free Speech and a Free Press.

Not all speech, however, is protected. There are basically 9 categories of speech NOT protected by the First Amendment:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander) ***
• Child pornography
• Perjury ***
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes
• Some experts add treason

***  You’ll notice that speech that is not truthful is not protected by the First Amendment. Untruths add nothing to the “marketplace of ideas” that the First Amendment was established to create.  (See Defamation and Perjury)

You may have heard folks on the left claim that “Hate Speech” isn’t protected.  Most notably, you may have heard this in the last month or so by one-time presidential candidate Howard Dean. But this is false. “Hate Speech” may sound like something that isn’t protected by the Constitution but the category doesn’t actually exist – at least in first amendment jurisprudence. It is an amorphous term that means one thing to one person and something else to another person. It is a term that is capable of constantly being enlarged, and in fact, if you look at the growth of the snowflake movement, you can see how easily it is to offend a liberal. How quickly do you think it will take this current group of thin-skinned emotional basket-cases to label speech that insults them as “hate speech”?

To be clear….  You have every right to say mean and hurtful things.

It is no coincidence that Speech is addressed in the first of the amendments to the Constitution. It was deemed to be critical in a free society. Speech is important because with speech and press, we are able to alert our fellow citizens when our rights and civil liberties are under attack. It is our first line of defense when government becomes corrupt and tyrannical.  We exercise the first amendment to criticize and protest government so that we don’t have to exercise the second against it!!

College Campuses and Snowflakes –

Years ago, college campuses were popular havens for free speech. Students and speakers could freely express and exchange ideas, even ones that were unpopular. Berkeley was once seen as the home of the Free Speech movement, if you can believe it.

So, what happened?  What happened to Free Speech?

Back in February, Berkeley students covering themselves in black face masks went berserk when conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was set to speak. They caused over $100,000 in damage to the campus and promoted the university to cancel the event.

Last month, Ann Coulter was set to speak there. First she was invited, then uninvited, and then invited again – as long as she could be scheduled on a day when students didn’t have any actual classes on campus. When the school told her they could not assure her safety, even though her safety was at risk, she was forced to cancel her visit.

Berkeley students successfully shut down conservative speech. By violence. By intimidating. By threats.

Nowadays, it is fairly common for college students to shout over and shout down even moderate-leaning speakers. If they don’t like the message or the speaker, they aren’t going to let them speak. This is happening all over the country.  You have to ask yourself why we call these students Progressives, even thought that is the movement to which they belong. They certainly aren’t for the progression of civilized thought and conduct. They are not for the progression of freedom and liberty. Rather, they are for its regression.

Today’s liberal college students require safe spaces, trigger warnings, and days off from class in order to deal with their feelings. Our universities, bastions of liberal thought, have developed these concepts to help students deal with feelings rather than prepare them to deal with facts and articulation. Couple this with the constant smearing of any intellectual or political opponent as “racist” or “bigoted” or “homophobic,” etc, and they are succeeding in producing a generation of closed-minded individuals who are increasingly intolerant.  They are increasingly hostile to the notion of tolerance when it comes to views that are different from theirs. It is if they cannot intellectually or emotionally deal with opposite views. I guess you can say that today’s students are becoming increasingly intolerant of tolerance.

And we all know that the intolerance essentially comes from one side. Imagine if Tucker Carlson shouted down a guest on his show simply because he didn’t agree with the opposing viewpoint or imagine if Dinesh D’Souza refused to answer a question from someone in his audience who disagreed with him. They’d be labeled “hypocrites” and “intolerant.”

Today’s generation – and mainly those on college campuses – are treated like babies…  and that’s because that’s how they act.

We call the young liberal generation a bunch of snowflakes and there is a reason we call them this. “Snowflake” is a term that refers to fragility. These young people have an inflated sense of their self-worth and are therefore offended easily. They are so fragile that when they hear the slightest thing that causes them discomfort or uneasiness or that insults them, they melt. They have a melt-down. They are too easily offended and hence need “safe spaces” to retreat to. In these safe spaces, they are surrounded by those who think exactly like they do. [In the real world, we are told by the government that we have no right to be surrounded by only those who think like ourselves; we must be diversified!]  These young liberals have been coddled probably most of their lives, or at least indoctrinated by their parents or pandered to by society. And now they are ill-equipped intellectually and emotionally to face the real world. They are certainly unable to face life’s challenges (such as the 2016 election) and unable to confront opposing opinions with any amount of dignity.

To see how bad this situation has become, look at how this term “snowflake” has morphed in its definition. Back in May 2016, when Donald Trump was campaigning and all of a sudden it appeared that people all over the country were able to connect with him and were articulating very convincingly why he should be president, the term “snowflake” was defined as “an overly-sensitive person who is incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own.”  It was used mainly in describing a liberal.. a Democrat. It was used to describe those who would show up and protest Trump rallies and do nothing but shout insults. After Trump was elected and the progressive protest-fest ensued, the definition was modified. Now it means “Any entitled millennial progressive tard who runs to her ‘safe space’ to play with stress toys and coloring books’ when triggered by various innocuous microaggressions.”  In other words, it describes a person incapable of dealing with persons who don’t think exactly like they do.

Universities becoming safe havens for snowflakes serves no good purpose, except I suppose for keeping young people blindly indoctrinated. What is being stolen from today’s college students is the ability to learn how to think about complex issues while in an educational setting (a relatively safe, coddling environment) so that they can be equipped to engage with the diverse array of ideas in the real world. And that type of diversity (the diversity of ideas and the diversity of thought) is far more important practically than the type of diversity that colleges love to brag about – the diversity of their student body based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.

An open and robust discussion with a wide array of ideas and opinions is how we expand our knowledge and deepen our understanding. This is how we figure out what we believe in and how strongly we believe it. We don’t strengthen what we believe in by silencing or shaming or defaming those we don’t agree with.

The Right of Free Speech is Almost Absolute –

The right of Speech and Expression is almost absolute. We absolutely have the right to protest…   It’s one of the very reasons for the First Amendment in the first place.  In fact, the standard by which we gauge how strongly we embrace our right of free speech is how well we safeguard and respect people’s right to engage in unpopular speech.  We have the right to use our speech to counter someone else’s speech. What we DON’T have is a right to SILENCE someone else by using violence or intimidation.  We have the right to use Hate Speech, it’s true, but we shouldn’t.  And let me explain why.

When you use violence and intimidation – and even hate speech, it has a “chilling effect” on free speech. It results in self-censorship. People – candidates, politicians, writers, speakers, bloggers, radio and TV personalities – begin to watch what they say and keep their commentary “safe.”  This doesn’t serve the “marketplace of ideas” at all.  We in the conservative community and the Tea Party movement know all too well about self-censorship. We lived in fear for years under President Obama when he was using the IRS to target our “viewpoint” for audits and harassment.

Violence and intimidation quiets a speaker who simply would rather not deal with the threats and the smears and the protests. Where would our country be now if great men and women felt it was best to self-censure?

I think we all need a refresher course on what the First Amendment means and what its purpose is in our Constitution.  The First Amendment is about prohibiting the federal government – the government capable of consolidating and consuming the individual States – from passing any laws that affect free speech. It has absolutely nothing to do with the speech or expression of a private person and whether that speech or expression offends the sensibility of another person or group of people.

If you are offended by someone’s speech – by his or her ideas or opinions, then you have the right to counter with more compelling speech, with better ideas, better opinions, better arguments. That’s what you SHOULD do.  This is what universities should be teaching our students. This is what they should be preparing them for. They shouldn’t be teaching them to be emotional snowflakes and intellectual cowards.

As mentioned earlier, the standard by which we gauge how strongly we embrace our right of free speech is how well we safeguard and respect people’s right to engage in unpopular speech.  Judging according to this standard, today’s college students have no respect for the First Amendment and would just as soon allow the right of free speech to be doomed…..  except as it applies to themselves, of course.

I think we all need a refresher course on what Free Speech is and what the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech means. It secures a place not only in the Bill of Rights, but it is the subject of the very first of those essential amendments. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech is about prohibiting the federal government – the government capable of consolidating and consuming the individual States – from passing any laws that affects or burdens an individual’s freedom of speech and expression. Together with the guarantee of religious liberty, the First Amendment was added to the Constitution to prevent the government from establishing an absolute tyranny over the conscience and the thoughts and expression of We the People and our ability to comment critically on our government.  Thought control and the control of information is the tool of a tyrannical government.  Maximilien Robespierre, who manned the guillotine during the French Revolution, said: “The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”

President Harry Truman spoke similar words in an address to Congress in 1950: ““Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

Tens of thousands of brave Americans, motivated by the words and sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence, fought and died to break the chains of British tyranny so that those sentiments could flourish here. These freedoms and these foundations are endangered when Americans are ignorant as to our founding and are otherwise unwilling to engage in the discussion necessary to keep our First Amendment vibrant and intact.

References:

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).  Referenced at:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/330/1

Professor Daniel Dreiisbach, “Origins and Dangers of the Wall of Separation Between Church and State,” Imprimis (Hillsdale College), Volume 35, Number 10 (Oct. 2006).  Referenced at:  https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/origins-and-dangers-of-the-wall-of-separation-between-church-and-state/

Bill Fortenberry, “What Did Jefferson Mean By the Phrase ‘Wall of Separation’?“ The Federalist Papers (blog), November 1, 2013.  Referenced at:  http://thefederalistpapers.org/current-events/what-did-jefferson-mean-by-the-phrase-wall-of-separation

Charles C. Cooke, “Howard Dean is Peddling Hate Speech Hogwash,” The National Review, April 21, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/446941/howard-dean-hate-speech-not-protected-first-amendment

Dave Rubin, “Ann Coulter’s ‘Hate Speech’ is Protected by the First Amendment, The Rubin Report.  Referenced at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Fm9z4LGDs

by Diane Rufino, May 21, 20 17

KEEP AN EYE on the POLITICAL COUP that is brewing. It is coordinated at many levels.

A coup d’etat is defined as an overthrow of government, and hence the state, by the illegal and overt seizure of power by the military or other elites within the state apparatus. James Downton explains: “Unlike the coup d’etat that sees a military or popular figure lead a minority resistance or majority force into power over the legitimate government, this coup d’etat is leaderless and exposes some of the deepest fissures in our system of government. This coup d’etat represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”

Ever since I shockingly watched as a news reporter pondered on air what would happen if both Donald Trump and Mike Pence were assassinated during the inauguration ceremony, and ever since I witnessed the Women’s March on January 21… And as I continue to observe how members of Congress have absolutely lost all semblance of obedience to the Constitution and respect for the Electoral College outcome as they attack Trump for every word and breath he has taken so far in office, as I disappointingly note how the liberal courts are doing their best to re-write the Constitution and federal laws duly enacted by prior administrations, and as I listen disbelievingly each day to the conjured, false narrative that the Russians interfered with the presidential election and that there was collusion between Putin and Trump and his team in order to rob Hillary of her victory, and as I read about the audacious repeated leaks from government in violation of our federal Espionage and other laws in order to frustrate and taint our new president, and I see college students act like uncivilized savages on their campuses when any conservative speaker dares to be invited, and as I listen dumbfounded to members of Congress call for Trump’s impeachment when no action has warranted this action, I know that we are in the midst of a coup d’etat. I’ve made this allegation for months now and I can’t help but notice how many are now saying the very same thing.

I’m still, to some extent, affected deeply by the dark depths to which the Trump-hating media went on that glorious inauguration day. Who can ever forget it?  During the inauguration events, CNN contributor Brian Todd had the audacity to openly brainstorm what would happen if President-elect Donald Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were assassinated.  (Who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice-president, and Congressional leaders just as the transfer of power is underway?”)  Their conclusion? According to their diabolic, yet hypothetical scheme, it would be a member of the Obama cabinet who would be selected to take over as president. As Todd explained: “According to the Constitution, if the president and vice president are killed or incapacitated, next in line is the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate……  But what if something happened to them at the inauguration, too?”

He continued: “After that, it goes down the list of cabinet secretaries, starting with secretary of state. On the day of the inauguration, as a precaution, a cabinet secretary called the ‘designated presidential successor’ will not attend the inauguration, ready to step in if something happens. But it won’t be a Trump cabinet secretary, since none of them have been confirmed yet. It will be an Obama appointee.”

But Todd wasn’t the only one to mention a hypothetical assassination. Before his report, news anchor Wolf Blitzer led into the story by asking: “What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?”  As anyone can recall, tensions had never been higher than they were on election night, when ALL polls were proven wrong and Donald Trump was elected president, and in all the days after, even leading up to Inauguration Day. After all, that was what the Women’s March was all about and thousands upon thousands turned out for that. The remarks by Blitzer and Todd were highly reckless given the tension level and the frazzled, fragile psyche of many progressives who wouldn’t need any more than a suggestion to commit such an unspeakable act. How many “crazed lone gunmen” have assassinated our political figures in the past? How many have done so with less of a provocation? We are told that Jack Ruby silenced Lee Harvey Oswald in order to spare Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of seeing the man who murdered her husband go on trial.

And so, as Downton aptly describes it, this brewing coup d’etat “represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”  A full-on smear campaign is being coordinated at many levels, including by rogue officials remaining from the previous administration, by a group of exceedingly ignorant and partisan US politicians, by statist Republicans, and most brazenly, by the leftist media (ie, over 90% of the media). There is only one word to describe their conduct – other than “treasonous” and “rebellious” – and that is “deception.”  They are trying to deceive the American people of the worth of the man they elected. It is a smear campaign and nothing more. Downton explains it best: “The attack on Trump from within is coordinated and purposefully geared to make a lack of evidence seem like a mountain of evidence and be as damning as possible, although what it truly amounts to is a paper tiger. With the administrative state leaking and the partisans giving context, the media gins up a plot that declares Trump guilty of crimes of which there is no concrete evidence he committed. This is how you build the consensus behind a coup d’etat.”

We the People need to figure out a way to help conservatives ORGANIZE across the country so that if the government devolves according to the leftist plan and all hell breaks loose, we can put a plan in place to defend our rights under the Declaration (with respect to government) and to prevent the evil from taking hold. If government cannot function for the people who elected this president, then we don’t need government at all. It will have ceased to be a constitutional republic and will have officially become a political oligarchy, where a select group of political heavyweights run the country.

We have a dark group that is using the Democratic Party for their own purposes and a dark group within our government that continues to ignore us and work against us, that continues to subvert the useful ends of government, and that continues to want to un-do the legitimate and constitutional election of Donald Trump – a man who won the presidency against all odds and against a powerful machinery that did everything it could to prevent it from happening.  These dark forces have, as their ultimate goal, the undoing of the values and principles in our Declaration of Independence and rendering of our precious Constitution as nothing more than a piece of useless parchment paper, all in order to control absolutely “We the People.”

The Democratic Party, the progressive movement, the likes of George Soros, entrenched government elites, members of the Shadow Government saw the election of Hillary Clinton as the cement to consolidate power of the administrative state – the government that progressives have long hoped for. These groups of political elites and these multi-millionaires and billionaires, all believing that their kind have the right to power and the right to determine the future of this country view the rest of us as pawns, as mere putty in their hands who, with the right “incentives” will vote for their agenda and surrender in the process our precious liberties and our virtues. Virtues and principles and individual liberties, after all, must be surrendered for unelected individuals to assume total power.

For those of us who can recognize the precarious situation facing our country right now, we also have noticed the trend that has gotten us to this point… the massive growth of a “dependency” culture, the massive expansion of an “entitlement” mentality, the persistent division of individuals along race, culture, gender, and sexuality lines, the increasing attacks on morality and the laws of nature, and the increasing immigration of those who don’t have traditional “American values” as their primary reason for coming here. For decades, we have predicted these growing trends as an intentional design to erode our nation’s foundations.  “If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.”  [See James Downton’s article in The Federalist at http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/ ]

If it looks like it, feels like it, smells like it, acts like it…   we call it what it is…… TYRANNY.

I can’t help but sense a similarity to the John F. Kennedy administration.  Kennedy vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces.” The CIA could not allow this to happen and the next thing you know, Kennedy was removed. The assassination of JFK let to a complete reversal of policy, particularly in foreign policy and with the Vietnam War.  Many have termed the assassination (and a government conspiracy, as concluded by the Senate Select Committee on Assassination in 1979) “a coup d’etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.” (partial quote taken from the movie JFK).  Trump has made it a point (indeed, a campaign pledge) to seek the dismantling of the administrative state.  While the CIA during Kennedy’s administration did not fight back publicly, the administrative state (the secret government) is clearly more than capable of fighting back and seizing additional power through leaks, fabrication, partisan loyalty, and incest with the media. The removal of Trump, according to their plans, can be accomplished by non-violent means. The American people, after all, are a one-issue people (abortion, gay rights, transgender rights, women’s rights, illegal rights, entitlement rights) and are therefore without principle or sense of civic duty. They are meek.  Conservatives may get angered, Democrats believe, but they quickly go back to their routines –  living their lives and working; they don’t have the time or the stomach for prolonged protest or resistance.

In short, the powers that be are determined – and capable – of ensuring their survival.  Since they couldn’t achieve that end through the election of Hillary Clinton, they are prepared to go the more insidious route – the coup d’etat.

If you are as concerned as I am and believe there is a sense of urgency to our current situation, I ask that you consider what we can do and what we MUST do. The witch-hunt against Trump is historic and the liberals will not rest until they over-throw the will of the people, effect a coup in this country and erect a government not of the people’s choosing and not concerned with their legitimate issues. Real patriots would not allow this to happen. We have to assess all that is happening, what the counter-efforts are, what the likelihood is that their evil measures will be effective, and again, what we can or SHOULD do.  “A good patriot must always be willing to defend his country, even against his government.”

“Is a government worth preserving when it lies to the people?  It’s become a dangerous country when you cannot trust anyone…. when you cannot tell the truth.  I say ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall’!”  [Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK]

References:

James Downton, “We Are Witnessing a Slow-Motion Coup d’Etat,” The Federalist, May 19, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/

“CNN Prophesizes Trump, Pence Getting Assassinated During Inauguration,” Sputnik News, January 19, 2017.   Referenced at:  https://sputniknews.com/us/201701191049784915-shoddy-cnn-reporting-trump-inauguration/

by Diane Rufino, May 24, 2017

“No free man shall be debarred (denied) the use of arms.” –  as proposed by Thomas Jefferson for Virginia’s Bill of Rights, 1776

The Federal Farmer (anti-Federalist author) in 1788: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught how to use them.”

Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention to Ratify the US Constitution, in June 1788: “The great object is that every man be armed.”

At the same time it ratified the US Constitution in 1788, the New Hampshire Ratifying Convention proposed this amendment for the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.”

The Federal Gazette, dated June 18, 1789, described James Madison’s proposal for a Bill of Rights: “The people are confirmed in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

“We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All the evidence indicates that the amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.”   —  The Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit (2001)

INTRODUCTION –

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

For most of our nation’s history, the Supreme Court has essentially managed to avoid ruling on the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment and that worked out just fine. And that’s probably because for about 150 years, it apparently was universally understood that the amendment protected an individual right to arms rather than a right only when organized in a militia. It wasn’t until the 20^th century that a legal debate began in earnest over the characterization of the right recognized in the Second Amendment.

Is the right to arms an individual right or a collective right?  Indeed, in the 20^th century, federal courts have seemed confused on this question. Some embrace the historical model, which holds that the amendment recognizes the right of people, as individuals, to bear arms.  And others embrace the more radical model, the “collective rights” model, which holds that individuals have the right to arms but only when they are members of a militia.

The “collective rights” model was embraced in 1939 in a case called United States v. Miller.  The case arose after two men, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, were arrested for transporting a double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun across state lines and in interstate commerce. They were charged with violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”).  Miller and Layton argued that the NFA violated their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and therefore it was unconstitutional as it applied to them. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed and it went to the Supreme Court. The issue at the heart of the case was whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms? The Supreme Court concluded that it does not. It reasoned that because the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the functioning or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

Although the right to arms became an increasingly heated topic as the 20^th century went on, the Supreme Court refused to hear cases to re-address the amendment.  And so, the Miller decision defined the position of the federal judiciary from 1939 for almost 70 years.  The Second Amendment did not recognize an individual’s right to have and bear arms for self-defense – only the defense of a State. But then in 2008 and then in 2010, the Supreme Court, with the late great Antonin Scalia on the bench, agreed to hear two cases, each addressing the same issue and each directly asking the Court to re-address the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.  The 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, addressed a federal gun control law, and the 2009 case, McDonald v. Chicago, addressed a state gun control law. [The first was a direct challenge to the Second Amendment and the second was a challenge under the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment].

In Heller, at issue was a gun ban in the District of Columbia (hence, it was a federal gun law) which regulated firearms in several ways: (1)  It made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm; (2) It prohibited the registration of handguns; (3)  It required owners of lawfully-registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled, even in the home, or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities.  Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied, and so he brought suit to challenge the gun ban as violative of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed with Officer Heller (5-4 majority, of course). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Therefore, the ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism was inconsistent with the intent of the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion.  The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.

The piece of legislation addressed in the McDonald case was Chicago’s gun registration law, which: (1)  Prohibited the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban; (2) Requires that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents; (3)  Mandated that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee; and (4) Rendered any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses. 76-year-old Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971. He complained about the decline of his neighborhood, describing it as being taken over by gangs and drug dealers. His home and garage had been broken into five times. An experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns, but believed them too uncontrollable in the event of a robbery, and so he wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Due to Chicago’s requirement that all firearms in the city be registered, yet refusing all handgun registrations after 1982 when a city-wide handgun ban was passed, he was unable to legally own a handgun. So he and some of his neighbors challenged the Chicago gun registration law as violative of the Second Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment’ right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are “fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” or that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” right, and so, the Second Amendment’s protections and prohibitions apply to the States.

As you read the body of this article, consider what liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor argued in their dissent. They wrote that there is nothing in the Second Amendment’s “text, history, or underlying rationale” that characterizes it as a “fundamental right” warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.  Keep that in mind.

Heller and McDonald were decided after a deep look into the historical roots of the Second Amendment, something that the Court should have done in the Miller case. The current understanding is that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual’s right to arms for self-defense and equally recognizes the right to have and bear arms for the purpose of a state militia.

The opinion makes sense.  According to the Declaration of Independence, and natural law, we have the right to life and liberty. These rights are inherent with our humanity. They are inalienable. We never surrender them. Therefore, by extension (by corollary), we must have the right to defend them. Otherwise, the rights are meaningless; there are merely parchment pronunciations.

The desire to live and survive is innate; we reflexively act to protect our lives and to thrive. And when we can’t, we feel violated. Just ask anyone who has been the victim of a violent crime, of a robbery, an assault, a break-in.  Ask someone who has the experience of a stranger breaking into their house in the middle of the night. I had that experience. And I have a gun today because I never want to feel helpless and vulnerable and the victim of predation again.

From a simple reading of the Bill of Rights, one notices that the First Amendment and the other amendments as well, address individual rights. If the Bill of Rights identifies individual rights – as did the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights – shouldn’t one sense pressure to view the Second Amendment similarly?

Historically, the “individual right” view is the best proven one, and so the Supreme Court rightly decided the Heller and McDonald cases.  But what is that history that so grounds our Second Amendment and so secures its meaning as an individual right?

The DVD “In Search of the Second Amendment” explains this history very clearly:

THE HISTORY of the SECOND AMENDMENT –

[This section is lifted, in part, from the DVD “In Search of the Second Amendment (A Documentary),” produced and directed by David T. Hardy (2006)]

The 1930’s through the 1970’s was a time period when Americans were embracing their gun rights, but lawyers weren’t paying much attention to the Second Amendment – one way or another (that is, on either side of its interpretation).  There wasn’t much thought given to it. But as the years went on, there was growing evidence for the “individual right” view. Law reviews were publishing articles on the topic and books on the Constitution were taking notice of this meaning. Momentum was slowly building for a show-down in the Supreme Court to address this building consensus.

One of the leading Constitutional Law treatises of the later 20^th century, American Constitutional Law, was written by Laurence Tribe, professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. His first edition was written in 1978. Attorney Leonard Levy wrote a subsequent book, Essays on the Making of the Constitution, in which he attacked Tribe’s textbook for failing to acknowledge the growing the evidence of the “individual right” view of the right to have a bear arms. Tribe immediately published a second edition accepting this evidence.

Why this growing trend?  And what does it mean for the Miller decision?  Did the Court at the time not have the evidence?  Before coming to the conclusion that the Second Amendment conferred only a collective right (although it appears they only alluded to this viewpoint without coming right out with a bright line rule of construction), didn’t they bother to go back and research the amendment’s history?

What got the ball rolling towards the “individual right” point of view?  One article appears to be responsible. The recent boom in Second Amendment legal scholarship that has led to most constitutional scholars to accept the view that the amendment protects an individual’s right to have and bear arms began with an article by Don Kates, published in the Michigan Law Review. That article was titled “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment.’ [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/57mich.pdf].

Top legal scholars, many of which are liberal, such as Sandy Levinson (of the University of Texas, writing in the Yale Law Journal), Randy Barnett (Boston University School of Law), Bill Van Alstyne (Duke University), and Eugene (Professor at the UCLA School of Law) have made it clear that their research has led them to conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have arms.

The history behind the Second Amendment goes back well before the colonies were even settled. It goes back to the very history of the fore-fathers and founders of our country. It goes back to the history of England, the country that gave us so much of our common law, gave us our Bill of Rights, and gave us much of the foundation upon which we built our Declaration, our Constitution, and our system of government.

In medieval England, there was no royal army. There wasn’t enough money or control to have such a formal army. Instead, the King would have to count on his subjects to fight for him – to fight for the kingdom. And so, by law, the King established a citizen militia.  By law – the Militia laws – every male subject, beginning at a certain age, was required to own guns, have ammunition, be trained in their use, and show up for regular training sessions. Citizens could be called up at any time by the King to form the militia and so they had to always be in a state of readiness.  Henry VIII lowered the age of the males required to be trained to use guns. Under his rule, fathers were required to train their sons from age 7 and older in the use of firearms. “Bring them up in shooting!”

In 1688, a medieval “duty” to have and bear arms became an “indubitable right.”  How did this happen?   Dr. Joyce Malcolm, Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law and fellow of the Royal Historical Society, is an expert on this topic. She has been called “the leading historian on the history of English gun rights and English gun control.” Malcolm explains that gun ownership transformed into a “right” during the tumultuous 17^th century in England, and for understandable reasons. The transformation arose out of a conflict between King Charles I and Parliament. Eventually, in 1642, civil war broke out and members of Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell, brought charges against Charles. He was captured, tried for treason, and beheaded. His sons, the future King Charles II and King James II had fled to France at the time.

After Cromwell died and his son took over, rather than stability in England, there was mass chaos. The people, out of sheer desperation, asked Charles II to come back to England, assert his right to the throne, and rule, which he did.  But what did Charles come home to?  He returned to a country that turned on his father; a country that beheaded him. He also returned to a country that was very well-armed. Almost immediately, he sought to disarm the subjects and control the bearing of arms. He instituted serious gun control measures, both on individuals and on manufacturers. Gun manufacturers had to report to the King how many guns they manufactured each week and who purchased them. There were controls on the importing of guns, licenses were required for subjects who needed to move weapons around the countryside, and subjects had to report if they were traveling with a firearm. In the year 1660, King Charles II issued a series of orders to disarm those citizens that he deemed were – or would be – political opponents. One particular act that Parliament passed, in 1662, was especially repugnant. It was the Militia Act of 1662 and it gave militia officers the power to disarm anyone they believed was likely to be an opponent of the Crown.  And at first, the Act was actively enforced.  In 1671, Parliament passed the Game Act, which proved to be the greatest control over ownership of firearms that England ever had. The Game Act listed a whole host of weapons that were prohibited for hunting, and at the head of that list was guns !!

Charles II died and having produced no heirs, he was succeeded by his brother James. King James II would use the Game Act to try to disarm all those subjects who he deemed were not well-enough off. In other words, he tried to limit gun ownership to only those of a certain class of subjects. He sent out mass orders to disarm the citizenry.  According to the record, Dr. Malcolm explains, the orders were apparently not carried out.  But the actions of the King to disarm his subjects certainly arose concern and fear among the people of England.

And so, finally in 1688, the English people had had enough. They, together with a union of Parliamentarians, invited William and Mary, of Orange to take over the throne and depose King James II. Mary was the daughter of the king. The people promised they would oust James and offer no resistance to William and Mary if they agreed to sign a Bill of Rights acknowledging the rights of the people and promised to be held to that document. William and Mary agreed. They sailed from Orange and were met with the support of the citizenry, in what would be known as the “Bloodless Revolution” (or Glorious Revolution). James was forced to flee.  A new Parliament was formed (one not loyal to James, who was still alive) and this Parliament decided that a Bill of Rights was necessary to re-affirm all the rights that had been imperiled by James.  In order to tie the new King and Queen to an obligation to abide by these rights, the same statue that elevated William and Mary to the throne also contained those rights – The Charter of Rights – The Charter of Ancient and Indubitable Rights.”  In fact, this Bill of Rights of 1689 was referred to as “The new Magna Carta.”  The statue created a contractual obligation, one that tied the right of the King and Queen to rule to an obligation to respect the rights contained in the Charter.

One of those rights was the right of British subjects (“who are Protestants”) to have arms for their defense (self-defense) “suitable to their position and allowed by law.”

Arms seizure weighed heavily during the deliberations in Parliament as it drafted the Bill of Rights of 1689. So incensed that the people, in mass, had been targeted for arms confiscation under the Militia Act (and even some members of Parliament had been targeted), that the people and Parliament felt that the “duty” to have and bear arms was actually a “right.” The ability to arm oneself for self-defense was considered a right.

Indeed, by 1688, and enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1689, the duty to be armed became a right. One of the rights of Englishmen became the right to have arms for self-defense.

Between 1603 and 1776, the rights of Englishmen became the rights of Americans.

When the first three ships arrived in the New World, in what would become the commonwealth of Virginia, the English settlers encountered hostile French and Dutch settlers as well as hostile Indians. Because of this hostile environment, the arms laws were even stricter than the English ones. English colonists were required to have arms on them at all times and they were required to be trained in their use. “Every male inhabitant shall carry a firearm wherever he goes.”  As the colonies were settled, one by one, they established their state militias. They drew from their knowledge of the militia system in England to develop their own military forces. The resulting colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male citizen to participate and to provide his own arms. For example, in the colony of Virginia, in 1623, the Virginia General Assembly commanded, “that men go not to work in the ground without their arms; That no man go or send abroad without a sufficient partie well-armed.” In 1661, its Governor, William Berkeley stated, “All our freemen are bound to be trained every month in their particular counties.”  Virginia followed the British county lieutenant system; each county had a lieutenant, appointed as the county’s chief militia officer.

Yes, it was a “duty” to have and bear arms, in order to serve in the militia and help defend the colony, but apart from this duty, the colonists knew, as loyal British subjects (which they were and which they considered themselves), they also had the right to own them and to bear them.  For confirmation, they only needed to consult the second most popular book of the day (the first being the Bible), Blackstone’s treatise on the English common law, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765).

In Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” he addressed the right to arms:

“The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject that I shall at the moment mention, is that of having arms for their defense – suitable to their condition and degree, and as such as are allowed by law. It is indeed a public allowance, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain violence of oppression.”

Blackstone says clearly that the right is not only for defense and for protection, but it is also to resist tyranny. The main purpose of the right to bear arms is to resist tyranny – in order that the people in the community, together and with their firearms, could overthrow a dictatorship in the last resort, should none of the other checks and balances work.

By the mid 1760’s, tensions were growing increasingly high particularly in the colonies, and in Boston in particular. It wasn’t long before the redcoats arrived, to live among the people of Boston and to make sure that they stayed “in line.” With the Redcoats came acts of criminality – rapes, robberies, murder.  The Boston Gazette published articles warning the colonists that they would soon be disarmed and should they “act out,” they would be taken to England and tried for treason. The colonists began to arm themselves – first to defend themselves against the criminal tendencies of the soldiers and also because it seemed likely that the tensions would escalate into conflict.  They cited the English Bill of Rights, the Militia Acts of the colonies, and even Blackstone’s “Commentaries” for their right to arm themselves.  “It is beyond sophistry to prove (meaning, it is clearly fallacious) that British subjects, to whom the privilege of necessary arms is expressly recognized by the [English] Bill of Rights, and who live in a province were the law requires them to be equipped with arms, are guilty of illegal acts in calling upon one another to be provided with them – as the law directs!”

Citing Blackstone, the colonists understood the reason they were vested with the right to bear arms: “It is a natural right, which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense; and as a Blackstone observer, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Tensions soon escalated and a series of events followed.  Under the Intolerable Acts, the colonial legislature was abolished and King George III sent General Thomas Gage, a proven military commander at the time, to Boston to serve as the Royal Governor. British spies tipped off General Gage that the colonists were stockpiling ammunition and artillery at nearby Concord. On the light of April 18, 1775m Gage sent a column of soldiers to Concord to destroy the supplies. Their trip led them through Lexington, where they encountered a small group of colonial militiamen. A shot went off (no one knows how it happened), but the response was immediate. Shots rang out and armed conflict between England and Massachusetts had begun. The revolution had begun. British forces drew first blood.

Despite the skirmish, the troops continued to Concord where they found the ammunition and where they also found several thousand angry townsfolk. The troops proceeded to burn the stockpile but from the vantage point of the townsfolk, it looked like they were attempting to burn down the town. And so, the townsfolk opened fire on the troops, forcing them to retreat. As they were retreating the 15 miles or so back to Boston, more and more members of the militia turned out to fire upon them. The British soldiers suffered over 300 casualties. Not only did they draw first blood, but they were defeated.

The fighting, however, was not to be contained in Massachusetts. In Williamsburg, Virginia, the colonists built an armory to store their gunpowder. Late during the night of April 20, 1775, royal governor Dunmore ordered British sailors to raid the armory and to take the gunpowder back aboard their ships. Dunmore allowed this even as statesmen such as Patrick Henry and William Henry Lee and other Virginians were already pushing to revive the state militia – to put into execution the militia law that was passed in the year 1738 – and to put them in the posture of defense (that is, to prepare them to defend the State against the British).

Just a month prior to that event, there was a general alarm that was spreading among the colonies – fueled, no doubt, by men like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine – that the British were removing gunpowder from the public stock in order to render the colonists unable to resist the Crown. Clearly, as was done in Boston, England was intent on disarming them – just as King Charles II had done to his subjects approximately 100 years ago in the mother country. The King (George III) was not depriving them of their right of representation in Parliament this time (no taxation without representation); now he was stripping them of their right to bear arms for defense.

Only a handful of statesmen recognized what was happening and what its significance was. Patrick Henry was one. It was this general alarm, this general fear that England was coming to disarm the colonists, that prompted him, on the night of March 23 at St. John’s Church to propose three resolutions to raise, equip and prepare the militia for conflict.

His resolutions read simply:

Resolved, that a well-regulated militia composed of gentlemen and yeomen is the natural strength and only security of a free government; that such a militia in this colony would forever render it unnecessary for the mother country to keep among us, for the purpose of our defense, any standing army of mercenary forces, always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support.

That the establishment of such a militia is at this time peculiarly necessary, by the state of our laws for the protection and defence of the country some of which have already expired, and others will shortly do so; and that the known remissness of government in calling us together in a legislative capacity renders it too insecure in this time of danger and distress, to rely that opportunity will be given of renewing them in General Assembly or making any provision to secure our inestimable rights and liberties from those farther violations with which they are threatened.

Resolved therefore, that this colony be immediately put into a posture of defence: and that Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Carter Nicholas, Benjamin Harrison, Lemuel Riddick, George Washington, Adam Stephen, Andrew Lewis, William Christian, Edmund Pendleton, Thomas Jefferson and Isaac Zane, Esquires, be a committee to prepare a plan for the embodying arming and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose.

Perhaps the most rousing speech delivered in colonial America was by Patrick Henry and it was in support of these resolutions:  [As you read the speech, consider the circumstances to which he is speaking, and keeping in mind that men like Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Lee, Washington were keenly aware of the history of the people England, the continued struggle to assert their rights, to seek assurances, to have them violated, and only to have to try to re-assert them again, and again…..]

“The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

With the raid on the armory at Williamsburg, thus confirming Patrick Henry’s worst fears, the most powerful colony in the South (Virginia) was driven into an alliance with the most powerful colony in the North (Massachusetts).  The Boston Revolution soon became an American Revolution.

Thus, the American revolution started over our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It may have started over the right not to be taxed without representation in the legislature from which such taxing measures arise, but the actual revolution itself erupted over the actions of the Crown to disarm the people.

In 1775, the colonies called up the First Continental Congress to seek a peaceful resolution of the growing tensions. That Congress sent a series of petitions to the King to implore him to intercede on their behalf and recognize that their rights were being violated. He laughed at the petitions and likened the colonist to petulant little children who liked to throw fits. [Patrick Henry referenced this effort in his fiery speech at St. John’s: “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.”]  In 1776, the colonies called up the Second Continental Congress to manage the war effort against the British. General George Washington was put over the Continental Army and on July 4, 1776, the Congress signed the Declaration of Independence, declaring the colonies to be independent from Great Britain and articulating to a “candid world” the list of grievances against Great Britain which would support and justify its decision to separate.

Once the colonies proclaimed their independence, the strongest sign they could send to demonstrate that independence was to assume statehood and adopt state constitutions (the signs of sovereignty).  And so, each colony organized itself as a state and drafted and adopted a constitution. Most also adopted a Bill of Rights, in one form or another.

Different states provided different models for the right to bear arms. In 1776, George Mason went to work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He introduced the enumerated rights with a statement of nature’s law and a statement of the relationship of individuals and government, in general.  He wrote:

THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Then he addressed the right to arms:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty….

The Virginia Declaration of Rights was adopted June 12, 1776.

Thomas Jefferson submitted a draft of a Bill of Rights to be taken up at the upcoming convention (to draft a constitution for the first government of the “united” states, which as we know, was the Articles of Confederation). He wrote: “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms.”

The Pennsylvania Bill of Rights, adopted in September 1776, recognized a right to bear arms for both self-defense and in defense of the State.

1. That all men are born equally free, and independent; and have certain, natural, inherent, and inalienable rights; amongst which are; the enjoying and defending of life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.

In March 1780, Massachusetts adopted its Constitution and Bill of Rights, written by John Adams. It acknowledged a right to keep and bear arms, but added that it was for “the common good.”  The MA Bill of Rights read, in part:

The end of the institution, maintenance and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it, with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights, and the blessings of life: And whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.

Part the First. A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Art. I.  All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

XVII.  The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense.

Looking at these three Constitutions and Bills of Right, we can see that there were at least three (3) colonial models to address the right to arms.

Again, to compare and contrast them concisely, addressing them in the order they were adopted:

(1)  The Virginia model emphasizes the militia.  “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state…”

(2)  The Pennsylvania model doesn’t mention militia; it emphases self-defense and defense of the State.  “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.”

(3)  The Massachusetts model took the Pennsylvania approach, but added a limitation in the form of the clause “for the common defense, and added the people also have a right to “keep” arms.  “The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense.”

These models would become important when our new nation would look to draft a national Bill of Rights.

And that time came in 1787, when after certain leading state leaders – namely, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton – found the Articles of Confederation unworkable for the growing union and took the initiative to call up a new constitutional convention. The Convention was held in Philadelphia from May to September 1787 and rather than heed the constitutional call of the Convention to “amend” the Articles of Confederation, a brand new plan of government was pursued and a brand new Constitution was drafted. Although the delegates from 12 states labored through the hot summer months of that year, engaged in countless debates, and pursued and negotiated through many contentious issues, in the end the final draft, the US Constitution, was not acceptable to many of the delegates. Seven delegates to the Convention walked out and refused to sign it on the last day – September 20, including Virginia’s George Mason. These delegates either complained that it conferred too much power to the federal government (mainly, an unlimited power to tax and spent, and to raise an army) or that it lacked a Bill of Rights, or both. Many of those who did not sign it were anti-Federalists, those who feared a weakening of the States at the hands of the federal government.

Nevertheless, once the Constitution was signed, it went to the States, which, acting in their own conventions, would take up the issue of ratification. If they ratified the Constitution, they would become part of the Union of States and if they didn’t, they would not.  Delaware ratified first, by a unanimous vote. Then came Pennsylvania, New Jersey (unanimous vote), Georgia (unanimous vote), and Connecticut (overwhelmingly). In January 1788, Massachusetts called its convention. Samuel Adams, who, although he did not attend the Philadelphia Convention, attended the ratifying convention. Assessing the Constitution, he addressed the Convention:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceful citizens, from keeping their own arms, or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States or of one or more of them, or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances, or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions.”

Samuel Adams is the strongest unsung hero of the Second Amendment. His writings on the right to have and bear arms goes back many years, even before his days in the Sons of Liberty.

Next, Maryland ratified the Constitution (overwhelmingly), then South Carolina, and finally New Hampshire (narrowly).  When New Hampshire ratified in June 1788, it became the ninth state to do so.  According to Article VII of the Constitution, the Constitution would go into effect when 9 states ratified. And so, the new Union was born.

But this new Union was still terribly fractured.  Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island still hadn’t decided. Actually, North Carolina met in Convention on August 2, 1788 but quickly rejected the Constitution (193-75). It agreed to meet again; it was waiting to see what the other States did regarding a Bill of Rights.

When New Hampshire ratified the Constitution on June 21, 1788, the Virginia Convention was actually still going on. It was contentious. Virginia, New York, and North Carolina were not expected to ratify, and the issue was over a Bill of Rights, which James Madison had argued in Philadelphia was not necessary. George Mason and Edmund Pendleton, two of the delegates from Virginia at the Philadelphia Convention who would not sign the Constitution, were now delegates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention and were committed to preventing the document from being ratified. These men, and many others, were already calling for another Constitutional Convention – particularly George Mason, and he had the potential power to move the plan forward. Mason and Pendleton were joined in sentiment at the Convention by Patrick Henry, who was highly skeptical of the Constitution and was confident it would lead to the consolidation of the states under the federal government.

At issue at the Virginia Ratifying Convention was essentially the concerns of the anti-Federalists, which was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights (and that the government tended to be overly-ambitious and powerful).  The Virginia view, in general, was that a Bill of Rights is the very least that a government owes to its people. Mason argued for a Bill of Rights, and of course, any Bill of Rights worth its salt would have to include a right to bear arms. Patrick Henry told the Convention: “The great object is that every man be armed!”

In the end, a compromise was reached.  James Madison promised that if the Virginia delegation would ratify the Constitution in the Convention he would recommend to the first US Congress that a Bill of Rights be added, as a series of amendments. Madison was known to be a trustworthy man and so, the Constitution was narrowly ratified on June 25 (89-79). However, the Virginia delegation did not merely ratify; in anticipation of a national Bill of Rights, it also proposed and drafted a series of amendments for consideration.

“Resolved, that, previous to the ratification of the new Constitution of government recommended by the late federal Convention, a declaration of rights, asserting, and securing from encroachment, the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the unalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most exceptionable parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be referred by this Convention to the other states in the American confederacy for their consideration”

When the Virginia delegation went back to write the amendments they would recommend, they looked to the Massachusetts and the Pennsylvania models, in addition to their own model.  The language that they came up with is as follows: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”

The right to bear arms for defense of oneself and the State comes from the Pennsylvania model. The right to keep and bear arms comes from the Massachusetts model.  By removing express limitations (such as “for the common good” or other qualifiers that might be later construed to limit the right (“for defense of themselves and the State”), the first part of the proposed amendment construes the right to arms in its broadest terms. The second part of the proposed amendment comes from the Virginia model and addresses the militia. The Virginia delegation already believed it was expressed in its broadest terms.

So, the Second Amendment is actually two separate thoughts. The intentional, conscious effort was to express the right to arms in the broadest terms possible, to be understood in its broadest sense.

The New York Convention followed. It wrapped up on July 26, one month after the Virginia Convention. It was another contentious convention. As in Virginia, it was a battle between anti-Federalists and Federalists.  On the anti-Federalist side, the words of the Federal Farmer (possibly Richard Henry Lee) were invoked: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught how to use them.”  Daniel Webster, for the Federalists, answered: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be raised in the United States.”  [to paraphrase: Because of the fact that the people are armed and therefore superior to any troops raised by the United States, they can prevent the execution of any law they perceive not to be just and constitutional].

The debates in New York led to the most famous work on the meaning and intent of the Constitution – the Federalist Papers.  In fact, Madison addresses the militia (and a standing army) in Federalist No. 46.  He wrote: “The people will never have to worry about a standing army because of the state militias.”

The New York Convention very narrowly ratified the Constitution (30-27). But as Virginia did, it called for a Bill of Rights and provided several for consideration.  North Carolina went on to ratify, but only because a Bill of Rights has actually been adopted!  And then Rhode Island ratified after that.

The Constitution was adopted on June 12, 1788 when the ninth state, New Hampshire ratified it. Fall 1788 saw the first national elections and as expected, James Madison was elected to the House of Representatives. In the months after the election and before taking his seat in Congress, which was in New York City at the time), Madison sat at his home in Montpelier and drafted a Bill of Rights. He drew from the proposed amendments that were submitted by the states.  He planned to bring them with him to the first session of Congress and present them, thus making good on his promise. He drafted twelve amendments.

On June 8, 1789, Madison stood up in the House of Representatives and proposed what would become the federal Bill of Rights. His proposed Second Amendment read: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

The first Congress amended Madison’s proposal; it removed the language concerning the conscientious-objector.  Then a committee was formed – a drafting committee – consisting of Madison himself and Roger Sherman, an anti-Federalist, to provide the final draft. The final draft of the Second Amendment was a pared-down version which read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In the debates in the Senate on the proposed Bill of Rights, a motion was made to insert into the Second Amendment the words “for the common defense” next to the words “bear arms.”  It was rejected !!

On September 25, 1789, Congress approved the amendments (all 12 of them) and then they were sent to the states.

James Madison’s friend, Tench Coxe, of Philadelphia, provided the most comprehensive analysis of the Second Amendment in a publication under the pen name “The Pennsylvanian.” It was printed in all the states.  He wrote: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be occasionally called to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.

All the leading commentators of the day saw the right to bear arms as an individual right, including  US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845), who was the leading constitutional expert and commentator during the early-mid 20^th century, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley (1864-1885), the leading constitutional commentator at the end of the 19^th century, and Sir William Blackstone, the leading English commentator who was very influential on our founders and framers.

St. George Tucker, who first gained fame as a Revolutionary War hero from Virginia, became famous again for writing a very famous treatise. In 1803, he wrote a 5-volume set, being characterized as the American version of Blackstone’s “Commentaries.”  It was titled: Blackstone’s Commentaries, with Notes of Reference to the Constitution & Laws of the Federal Government of the United States & of the Commonwealth of Virginia.  Tucker was seen as the best source and authority on the original intent and early interpretation of the US Constitution until about 1825, and his work has been cited by the US Supreme Court over forty times. For those looking to understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution at the time it was adopted and as it served our first sessions of government, it would be interesting to read Tucker’s volumes.

Tucker wrote about Blackstone’s exposition on the right to arms as it existed in the English law and explained how it applied to the United States. Tucker wrote: “’The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ This amendment is without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as in the case of the British government.”

He went on to elaborate even further:  Explaining the scope of the amendment, he wrote: “This [the Second Amendment] may be considered the true palladium of liberty…  The right of the self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments, it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, then liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

In 1825, Tucker’s treatise was replaced by the text written by William Rawle – A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Regarding the Second Amendment, Rawle wrote in his book: “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people..”  [Rawle was part of the convention in Pennsylvania that ratified the US Bill of Rights; he was offered the position of first US Attorney General but turned it down].

The most influential constitutional commentator of the late 19^th century and early 20^th century was Thomas Cooley. He was considered the greatest legal mind of the time. He wrote the text: The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America.  In his text, he explains exactly what the right is that is protected in the Second Amendment: “It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia, but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the actions or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and that they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose…”

Professor Randy Burnett of Boston University’s School of Law sums up the history of the Second Amendment this way: “What is shown by the historical record is that we have statements made before the second amendment was proposed, while the second amendment was being considered, and immediately after the second amendment was ratified, each of which reflects the understanding of the speaker that the amendment protects an individual right to have and bear arms.  What we don’t have – what we don’t find in the historical record is a single example of any contemporary at the time of the second amendment referring to it as anything other than an individual right.”

Professor Eugene Volokh, of the UCLA School of Law, comments: “Throughout the 1700’s, throughout the 1800’s, and up until the early 1900’s, the right to bear arms was universally seen as an individual right. There was virtually no authority for the collective rights/ states’ right point of view.” (States right to call a militia, that is).

But yet, in the late 20^th century and now in the 21^st century, somehow this history means nothing?

“The Second Amendment is a right held by States and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.”  — The Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit (2000)

“The right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the States to keep and maintain an armed militia.”   — The Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit (1996)

The conservatives on the bench in the Heller case and then in the McDonald case got it right. They chose to be intellectually honest.

References:

DVD:  “In Search of the Second Amendment (A Documentary),” produced and directed by David T. Hardy (2006).  Second Amendment Films LLC

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010)

Don B. Kates, Jr.  “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,” 82 Michigan Law Review (MICH. L. REV.) 204-273 (1983).    Referenced:  http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/57mich.pdf

Resolutions of the Provincial Congress of Virginia (Patrick Henry) regarding the militia, March 23, 1775 – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/res_cong_va_1775.asp

George Mason, the Virginia Declaration of Rights.  Referenced at:  http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/varights.cfm

Virginia’s Ratification of the Constitution, Elliott’s Debates (June 25, 1788) –  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june25/

The proposed amendments to the Bill of Rights submitted by the State of Virginia (June 27, 1788) –  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june27/

Teaching American History (an Intereactive Resource) –  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/overview/

by Diane Rufino, July 4, 2017

“My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died; Land of the Pilgrims’ pride, from ev’ry mountainside, Let freedom ring!”

Every successful experiment starts with a great hypothesis.  A hypothesis is a testable answer to a scientific question; an educated guess. One can say that our great American experiment started with a profound hypothesis. That hypothesis held that liberty is most secure when it is recognized and accepted that human rights are endowed by the Creator — not by government — and are therefore inalienable; that governments are creations or creatures of the People, instituted primarily to secure their rights and to serve them as they seek to establish an ordered society; and that once government becomes destructive of its ends, the People have the natural and inherent right to alter or abolish it and establish another form of government in its place.

That hypothesis was our Declaration of Independence.

Those who read the Declaration and think it stands merely for the notion that “All Men are Created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” are missing the bigger picture. They are missing out on perhaps the most revolutionary, the most profound, the most important political statement ever made. It is the document that has changed the world.

And yet, in planning to declare independence from Great Britain, our Founders could not know that this document, in all its grandeur and espousing such profound and enlightened principles, would be the vehicle. Perhaps history put the right man in the right place at the right time, for the right purpose.

Once hostilities broke out between the colonies and Great Britain, the colonies sought to use the opportunity to issue a simple declaration, stating that they regarded themselves as no longer a part of the British Empire but rather as free and independent States.  Thomas Jefferson would give us much more than a simple declaration.

On June 7, 1776, acting under the instruction of the Virginia Convention and particularly its presiding officer Edmund Pendleton (who had served as the President of the First Continental Congress), Richard Henry Lee on introduced a resolution in the Second Continental Congress proposing independence for the colonies. The Lee Resolution contained three very simple parts: a declaration of independence, a call to form foreign alliances, and “a plan for confederation.”

Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

On June 11, the Second Continental Congress appointed three concurrent committees to address Lee’s Resolution – one to draft a declaration of independence, a second to draw up a plan to form foreign alliances, and a third to plan a form of a confederation for the colonies. To draft the declaration, Congress named a five-member committee comprised of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Although Adams was deemed best qualified to write the draft, he urged Jefferson to write it. Jefferson had approached his friend Adams to confirm that he would be drafting the declaration. But Adams responded: “I will not. You should do it. You ought to do it.”  When Jefferson asked why, Adams explained: “Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can.”  [Adams was indeed unpopular; he had represented the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre

That very day, Jefferson would begin work on the Declaration of Independence. He moved into a small house -two blocks from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where the Continental Congress had been meeting – in order to write in seclusion. Because several members of the Congress wanted to seek instruction from their colonies before addressing such an extreme measure, the vote was deferred until July 2.

On July 2, the Congress voted on independence. It adopted the Lee Resolution, which, as reproduced above, declared the individual states independent from Great Britain. “Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”   But the Congress decided it needed to draft a document explaining the move to the public (“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world…”)  Such a draft had been proposed and submitted by the Committee of Five (written by Jefferson), and it took two days for the full Congress to agree on the edits. That is why we see the words “IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776,” at the top of the Declaration, because that is the day the last version was approved and signed in Philadelphia, at Independence Hall.

Once the final version was approved, the actual Declaration on Independence document that was signed on July 4 was sent to a printer named John Dunlap. About 200 copies of the Dunlap Broadside were printed and sent to the states, including to General George Washington.

The document was not titled “Declaration of Independence” nor does the term appear anywhere in the document, yet that was clearly its intention. The declaration justified the independence of the colonies by first asserting their collective understanding of the relationship between the individual and government, as well as the purpose and limits of government, then listing the colonists’ grievances against King George III (summing up with the line: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people”), and finally asserting certain natural and legal rights, including the right of secession (“That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved”).

The Declaration of Independence was a transformative document.  No longer would individuals have to petition or plead with government to respect their rights. Going forward, government would be established for the primary purpose of securing and enlarging their rights, guaranteeing that an ordered society would be possible while still allowing individuals to exercise the rights that they were born with; governments would no longer treat individuals like “subjects.” They would not be subject to the good graces or generosity of a King or his wrath or insecurity. “Inalienable” would now characterize the rights that their forefathers, Englishmen, could only enjoy if the King allowed it.

I love how exquisitely the Declaration of Independence explains how government is grounded in God’s Law and Nature’s Law and that it is always a creature of the people, for the people. For that reason, governments are always “temporary” in nature, enduring only as long as they protect and secure certain essential individual rights and as long as they serve productive ends. When a government ceases to serve either end, nature and Thomas Jefferson tell us that people have the right, the natural right (the right of self-determination, which is equally as “inalienable” as the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”) to alter or abolish it. And that is what the people of the American colonies, chose to do. The Declaration made the case for that decision, explaining that the “government” of Great Britain – the King and Parliament – had become destructive and abusive of their rights, which had been set forth in the great Magna Carta and solidified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. As Jefferson made clear, because “the history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” it was their natural right to sever political bonds with it, declare independence, to secede from Great Britain), and to establish a new government better suited to serve them and to respect and exemplify their ideals. The founding principles so brilliantly laid out in the Declaration form a foundation as strong as bedrock for our individual rights. If they are endowed by the Creator, who dare have the authority to take them away?  Similarly, if they are natural rights, belonging to us at our birth, we don’t lose them – just as we don’t lose the ability of our bodies to reproduce and have children and just as a falling body will always be acted on by the force of gravity. Some things are simply absolutes. Nature dictates life since it is from nature that we exist.  Jefferson grounded our rights in both God’s Law and Nature’s Law (some will argue that they are, in fact, one and the same), as the first paragraph of the Declaration makes clear: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

If we only took the time to read this magnificent document, to study it, and to truly understand and appreciate every phrase that Jefferson included, we would have a far deeper sense of gratitude for our Founders and their inspired wisdom and foresight and a far deeper appreciation for what this country stands for (or “stood for”). Perhaps people might even realize that being an American is a far greater privilege that they had ever bothered to contemplate and that maybe, just maybe, such a privilege carries an obligation to conduct oneself in a respectful and dignified manner, always mindful of what he or she represents as a citizen and always ready to defend and exemplify the best that the country stands for. I love our Declaration of Independence, and to me, it is, and has always been, the most important of all founding documents – serving as our nation’s moral compass and forever shining a light on the reasons and principles of our existence.

Jefferson’s profound hypothesis still stands. But has our experiment steered away from hypothesis so that the ultimate question can no longer be answered?  That is the question.  What does the future hold when we’ve loosened the moorings that once tied Liberty to the principles in the Declaration?

by Diane Rufino, July 27, 2017

In this era when Southern (Confederate) leaders, symbols, generals, buildings, etc are being erased from our memory and history, and vilified in our conversations because of their connection to slavery, I wanted to take this opportunity to remind folks that they should really do some homework before jumping on this politically-correct bandwagon.  A history lesson is an opportunity for speech, for dialogue, for debate, for learning.  Erase history and you erase much more than the mere reminder than an event happened. Erase the memory of the Confederacy and you erase a time when states had the backbone to stand up for the principles in the Declaration of Independence (“Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..”). Erase the memory of the Confederacy and you erase a time when states were willing to exert their natural rights of self-determination (aka, secession) rather than allow the federal government to subjugated them completely to its ambitious designs. Erase the memory of the Confederacy and you erase the last time in our nation’s history when states actually believed themselves to be the powerful sovereigns that they thought they would be under the US Constitution.

Be careful how you treat history.

Now many, it seems, are calling for the destruction of the monuments erected to Confederate leaders and Confederate generals, such as the great General Robert E. Lee.  There is no finer gentleman, no finer American, no finer human being than General Lee.  When President Lincoln tricked the South Carolina militia to fire on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1860, therefore giving him the reason he needed to raise troops to invade the South and force it back into the Union, he had some soul-searching to do. He was summoned to serve Lincoln and command the Northern Army, but then he would have to take up arms against the state he loved so much. Back in the day, one’s citizenship and one’s loyalties were first and foremost with one’s state (except, of course if you were a member of Congress). It was Lincoln’s Proclamation of April 15 that made Lee’s decision to fight for Virginia an easy one. Lincoln sent a dispatch to states such as Virginia and North Carolina, demanding that they send 75,000 troops to the Northern Army in order to invade the “rebelling states.”  Taking up arms, killing fellow Southerners, and imposing government force on his neighbors were things his conscience would not allow.  And so, he resigned the standing position he had with the government and joined the Confederate cause (Virginia voted to secede on April 17).

Lincoln had a tortured understanding of the Constitution and the South was right to resist.  Robert E. Lee, like so many other Southerns, was not a supporter of slavery and was looking forward to the day when the institution would either die a natural death (which it was on its way to doing) or would be abolished. He thought it an evil institution.  But slavery was not the cause of the hostilities that brought the War. It was government ambition, the disregard for States’ Rights, and the use of government force against member states (the ones who created the government in the first place) that initiated the violence that would claim more than 650,000 young American lives.  General Lee made the right choice. It may not have been the choice that best served our collective conscience regarding the enslavement of an entire race, but that’s not what the war was about. He made the right choice because only when states have the power to make their rightful decisions, including the decision to separate from an abusive government, can they effectively carry out the essential role that they play in our government system – to check the federal government when it oversteps its constitutional authority.

So, those who clamor to take down the statues of men like General Lee, or to erase his name from buildings and streets, take a moment to read what he had to say about slavery when the war was over: “I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”

by Diane Rufino, July 23, 2017

“If Satan can defeat us in our homes, then he can easily defeat us as a nation.” — Paul Aynes, Bible Study, People’s Baptist Church, Greenville, NC

Today was another excellent Sunday in Bible Study and at church. I am always grateful to learn about the Bible and its lessons. Folks, if you are not always learning about your faith, learning about what the Bible teaches, applying those lessons to your life, and associating yourself with people who are doing the same, then you need to think hard about how you spend your time and energies. Always invest in yourself and your family; that is your best investment and that’s where you will get the best pay-off. Stay away from hypocrites. Find the church that serves you best. We all know those who go to church on Sunday but ignore its teachings during the week and in their treatment of others. I’ve learned that the hard way this year.

Remember that Jesus not only died for our sins but he spent his time on Earth teaching. The disciples called him “teacher.” He called himself “The Son of Man.” He came to serve man, by giving us the greatest gift of all – keeping the channel open to our Heavenly Father and offering us the hope of eternal fellowship with Him. He taught so that we could live good and decent lives, serving one another, raising strong families, and therefore providing the foundation of loving, productive communities – always, of course, honoring God. By following his teachings, we can become the best versions of ourselves and thereby establish, as best as possible, the kingdom of heaven here on Earth.

But we can’t live the lessons if we aren’t taught and if we aren’t even seeking out the lessons. We shouldn’t be reading the Bible for its isolated verses; We can’t hope for a strong, healthy nation if we allow essential foundations to crumble. We can’t hope to enjoy the protection of the Divine Creator when we fail to reflect His values.

Going back to the idea that Jesus taught us the lessons that could help establish, as best as possible, a Godly kingdom on Earth, I can’t help but wonder if that was the inspiration for settling the colonies in America. I know that the Pilgrims and the Puritans left England because of religious persecution (that did not adhere to the Anglican Church, or Church of England); they focused particularly intently in the books of the Old Testament and believed that they had to live strictly to the divine law in every aspect of their lives. To that end, compacts and covenants were important in their lives. They were central to their establishments of social, political, and religious organizations. As they understood (from the Old Testament), God promised his people many things, through covenants, such as eternal life, wisdom, liberation from bondage, a new land, a prosperous nation, etc provided they obeyed His law… provided that they obeyed divine and moral law. They lived their lives and established their communities intending to be as close to God’s chosen people as possible.

We may recall from school: The Pilgrims came to America in 1620, aboard the Mayflower, and settled Plymouth Colony. The Puritans reached the new world in 1629 and established the Massachusetts Bay Colony (and they would establish other colonies, such as the Connecticut colony, later on).  The term “Puritan” first began as a taunt or insult applied by traditional Anglicans to those who criticized or wished to “purify” the Church of England. Although the word is often applied loosely, “Puritan” refers to two distinct groups: “separating” Puritans, such as the Plymouth colonists, who believed that the Church of England was corrupt and that true Christians must separate themselves from it; and non-separating Puritans, such as the colonists who settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed in reform but not separation. Most Massachusetts colonists were non-separating Puritans who wished to reform the established church.  (Donna Campbell, “Puritanism in New England”).

This reliance on covenants, on promises, on adherence to God’s law, perhaps the reason our founders often referred to our nation as being “guided by Divine Providence.” Samuel Adams once wrote: “Numerous have been the manifestations of God’s providence in sustaining us. In the gloomy period of adversity, we have had ‘our cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.’ We have been reduced to distress, and the arm of Omnipotence has raised us up.”  Our nation’s victories in the Revolution and subsequent wars, our prosperity, and even the inspired words in our founding documents have been attributed to the “benevolence” or the “providence of Almighty God.”  (“Providence” meaning “wisdom”). Otto von Bismarck, ruler of Prussia and then all of Germany (he formed the German empire, 1862-1890) commented: “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.”

If our country indeed was founded, in large part, by groups of people who lived according to covenants, including with God and with one another – to follow His laws and to do so for the benefit of one another – then I understand why our early generations believed, and perhaps expected, that God would extend His blessings to the new nation.  Early governments were structured this way. There was firm reliance on the Almighty.  A person who can govern himself properly is an excellent member of society. A society comprised of such individuals needs very little government. A society comprised of such individuals requires very little laws.  When less government is required, more freedom is enjoyed.  Robert Winthrop, former Speaker of the US House (1838-1840) explained it well: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

When less government is required, communities are happier and healthier because everyone is doing right by others; they are exercising their God-given liberties without burdening those of others and they are providing the help and support of others that otherwise government would need to do. In other words, they are getting along because the precepts of the Bible have taught them how to handle the evils that arise in society – vice, greed, ambition, crime, coveting, injustice, oppression, infidelity, immorality, and abuse of civic duty, and they are conscientiously committed to following such precepts.

Matthew 22:36-40 says:  36. “Teacher, what is the most important commandment in the Law?”  37-39. Jesus answered: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is the first and most important commandment. The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, “Love others as much as you love yourself.”  40. All the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments.

The sixth president of the United States, John Quincy Adams took note: “The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.”

And his father, John Adams, had delivered this famous message: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We hear it over-and-over again – that religion and morality are essential to the existence of men in society; that our government system, as established and limited by the Constitution, cannot be maintained unless the people are religious and moral; and that religion and morality are indispensable if we hope to secure the freedoms that we have. And yet we see a trend in the very opposite direction.  The people of the United States are becoming more distant from God, they are becoming shockingly immoral, they spend more and more time in the pleasures and distractions of this world than in education and spiritual renewal, and they work tirelessly to violate the laws of nature that have guided the world from its beginning and have successfully sustained its progression and survival. Satan has been deceiving us in our priorities and in the way we view our lives; rather than living a life of discipline and purpose, today’s individuals live for pure pleasure and self-gratification. It’s a “me, me, me” generation.  Satan has been destroying our homes. In schools, teachers and administrators no longer assume that their student’s parents have the same name, are married, or are even the opposite sex.

We can’t protect our families and strengthen our nation if we don’t secure the one pillar that props us up most strongly – religion. Religion provides the foundation for morality and the two of these together help us make the decisions that keep our nation in good health. To fight Satan, we must spend more time learning what God and Jesus expect from us. We must learn what God’s law means and how we are meant to apply it. Too many people treat the Bible like the progressives treat Constitution – as if it were a “living, breathing document, to be re-interpreted according to the social dictates of the time. In other words, they are willing to perverting it. But here’s the thing:  God’s Law has divine and natural elements to it, and as such, it is unchangeable, infallible, and universal.  Laws made by humans are imperfect, just as humans are. They are subject to change, to be molded and to evolve with time just as people and societies do. But laws that come from God, who, by definition, is the epitome of universality and infallibility, must be perfect, unchanging, and universal. They transcend all time and all cultures. As Marcus Tullius Cicero (of Rome) wrote: “There will be but one eternal and unchangeable law that will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all…”

Again, we are helpless and ill-equipped to meet today’s evil challenges when we don’t study the Bible.

If going to church on Sunday is about feeling good because you’ve made a donation or because you’ve put in an appearance, then all you have, my friends, is a hobby. It’s a waste of your time. If you’re reading a Bible verse here and there in church, then all you’re doing is reading the Bible to know the Bible. You should be in a church that is Bible-centered, where you read the Bible to know God and to study Christ’s teachings. You should be investing in your lives and in your families, and by extension, investing in your communities. The future of our society here in the United States, and therefore the future of our very republic and our ideals depends upon moral accountability.

“We ought to muse upon the things of God, because then we get the real nutriment out of them…… Why is it that some Christians, although they hear many sermons, make but slow advances in the divine life?  It’s because they neglect their closets, and do not thoughtfully meditate on God’s Word. They love the wheat, but they do not grind it; they would have the corn, but they will not go forth into the fields to gather it; the fruit hangs upon the tree, but they will not pluck it; the water flows at their feet, but they will not stoop to drink it. From such folly deliver us, O Lord…… ”― Charles H. Spurgeon

References:

Diane Rufino, “Self-Governing Individuals are Necessary for a Self-Governing Society,” www.forloveofgodandcountry.com, April 14, 2013.   Referenced at:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2013/04/14/self-governing-individuals-are-necessary-for-a-self-governing-society/

Donna M. Campbell, “Puritanism in the New England,” Literary Movements. Dept. of English, Washington State University. .Referenced at:  https://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/purdef.htmby

by Diane Rufino, July 23, 2017

The question is: Was the Civil War fought over the issue of Slavery?  I won’t deny that slavery was an issue that inflamed the passions of both sections of the country and put each at odds with one another, but it was NOT the cause of the conflict that I will refer to as the War of Northern Aggression, a war which claimed the lives of over 650,000 young Americans.

At the end of 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln as president, the Union was on the verge of dissolution. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated on April 4, seven states had already seceded and a new nation had been formed, the Confederate States of America (complete with a new constitution).  Following South Carolina’s lead (December 1860), Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and then Texas formally severed political ties with the Union. On April 4, Virginia held a state convention to consider secession but voted it down, 89-45. (North Carolina would do the same). Lincoln could not allow the Union to be split; he could not lose the tariff revenue supplied by the agrarian South which, in 1859, not only supplied approximately 80% of the federal revenue, but was used to enrich the industrialized North. And so, something had to be done to give Lincoln a “pretext” to restore the Southern states to the Union.

On April 12, 1861, Lincoln tricked South Carolina militia forces into firing on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter, even after South Carolina had demanded, and even tried negotiating for, the transfer of the fort to the Confederacy. The attack on Fort Sumter would provide the pretext he needed. He used the incident to characterize the southern states as being in a state of active rebellion and thus ordering troops to subdue them. On April 15, President Lincoln declared a state of insurrection and called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion and to defend the capital.  With that proclamation, four more Southern states left the Union. The first was Virginia.

Virginia did not leave the Union because of slavery; same with North Carolina. We should take particular note of this piece of history.

Virginia looked at President’s Lincoln’s Proclamation and demand for troops, and just as her leaders did when President John Adams passed the Sedition Act, she saw serious constitutional violations and contemplated how she needed to respond.

In reading the responses by Virginia’s Governor John Letcher below, you will see that he exercised all the remedies implied in the concept of State Sovereignty, Tenth Amendment, and even the Declaration of Independence:  First, he refused to comply with Lincoln’s decree – Virginia would not supply troops. That is Nullification and Interposition. And then, because the proclamation evidenced the will of a maniac, a tyrant, and an enemy of the Constitution, and evidenced the transformation of the federal government into something Virginia could no longer trust her sovereignty with and no longer wanted to be associated with, her people decided to sever the bonds which held her in allegiance. Virginia seceded.

On April 16, Virginia’s Governor John Letcher made the following dispatch to Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Simon Cameron:

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.RICHMOND, Va., April 16, 1861.

HON. SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War:

SIR: I received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time (have received your communication, mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia “the quota designated in a table,” which you append, “to serve as infantry or riflemen for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.”

In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object — an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 — will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South. Respectfully,

JOHN LETCHER.

The following day, Governor Letcher issued the following proclamation, which was published for the people of Virginia to read:

Whereas, Seven of the States formerly composing a part of the United States have, by authority of their people, solemnly resumed the powers granted by them to the United States, and have framed a Constitution and organized a Government for themselves, to which the people of those States are yielding willing obedience, and have so notified the President of the United States by all the formalities incident to such action, and thereby become to the United States a separate, independent and foreign power; and whereas, the Constitution of the United States has invested Congress with the sole power “to declare war,” and until such declaration is made, the President has no authority to call for an extraordinary force to wage offensive war against any foreign Power: and whereas, on the 15th inst., the President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia; and subsequently the Convention now in session, representing the sovereignty of this State, has reaffirmed in substance the same policy, with almost equal unanimity; and whereas, the State of Virginia deeply sympathizes with the Southern States in the wrongs they have suffered, and in the position they have assumed; and having made earnest efforts peaceably to compose the differences which have severed the Union, and having failed in that attempt, through this unwarranted act on the part of the President; and it is believed that the influences which operate to produce this proclamation against the seceded States will be brought to bear upon this commonwealth, if she should exercise her undoubted right to resume the powers granted by her people, and it is due to the honor of Virginia that an improper exercise of force against her people should be repelled.

Therefore I, JOHN LETCHER, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, have thought proper to order all armed volunteer regiments or companies within this State forthwith to hold themselves in readiness for immediate orders, and upon the reception of this proclamation to report to the Adjutant-General of the State their organization and numbers, and prepare themselves for efficient service. Such companies as are not armed and equipped will report that fact, that they may be properly supplied.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Commonwealth to be affixed, this 17th day of April, 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the Commonwealth.

JOHN LETCHER.

On April 17, in a newly-called convention, Virginia, the traditional leader of the South, made the decision to secede – 88 to 55, on the condition of ratification by a statewide referendum. Neither Virginia nor any of the other later-seceding states understood the federal government to authorize violence against member states.

Virginia’s ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451 on May 23.

On April 4, Virginia decided to remain in the Union. How did that decision preserve or extend slavery?  Virginians had been willing to endure a crushing protective tariff under President Lincoln, the likes of the Tariff of Abominations (1828). And they understood that remaining in the Union would mean that slavery would continue to be under attack by his administration. Virginia was loyal to the Union even when the government was antagonistic to her.  No, slavery wasn’t the reason the Southern states of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina (and probably others), left the Union. It would be Lincoln’s demand for troops that would change their minds. To these states, remaining in the Union was to abandon every principle of confederation that they valued. Continued loyalty to a Union that would attack member states and being forced to take up arms against her neighbors was inconceivable and intolerable.

Slavery was the issue that caused the North to become aggressively hostile to the states of the South and to cause the South to question whether the two regions could ever have enough of a common interest to remain joined together with a government that was to serve each equally and fairly. But the independent ambitions of the federal government and the schemes and twisted ideology of its president were the direct cause of its violent course the division would take.

Reference:

“Governor Letcher’s Proclamation: His Reply to Secretary Cameron – State of Affairs Norfolk,” New York Times, April 22, 1861.  Referenced at:  http://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/22/news/gov-letcher-s-proclamation-his-reply-secretary-cameron-state-affairs-norfolk.html