IMPEACHMENT DISTRACTION

TRUMP - ACQUITTED (Times of Israel)

(Photo courtesy of Times of Israel)

by Diane Rufino, February 9, 2020

For the past months, we have watched as President Donald J. Trump was impeached in the House by rabid partisan politicians, then tried in the Senate, and ultimately ACQUITTED. We have been utterly disgusted at the depths to which Democrats were willing to go to tarnish the name of this president, to somehow remove him from office, to undue the legitimate election of 2016, and at the very least, to smear his legacy and help derail his changes at re-election in November. We will never forget how the wicked witch of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said these words at the podium “He is impeached forever.”

Now we know that Trump’s popularity increased steadily and impressively during the entire process of impeachment and that his campaign took in record donations. We also now know that history will record Trump’s impeachment as nothing more than the desperate act of the most angry group of House Democrats in our country’s history. It was distinctly partisan, it was highly prejudicial to the Republicans and to Trump (they were all excluded from the testimony phase of the inquiry), and it was profoundly bitter and angry. History will record Rep. Adam Schiff as a conniving clown who fabricated charges, fabricated testimony, interpreted Trump’s conservation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky using his own personal and political slant, and essentially fabricated the two articles of impeachment without any actual crime committed (not that it is absolutely necessary) and in the most ambiguous and undefined terms. It was truly a “Schiff Show.”

So let’s take a look at this most solemn and serious of government processes – Impeachment of a US President.

Impeachment is the process whereby we can attempt to remove a president of the United States, other civil officers, or federal judges because of some egregious conduct.

As we’ll see, the term egregious conduct is what is and MUST BE the standard and the basis to legally attack a sitting president of the United States, or the other officers and judges, and then to remove him (or her) from office. So rabid were the House Democrats in their quest to destroy President Trump that their articles included a provision that he not be eligible to hold any other official public office.

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution provides:

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

First, we must notice which class of government officials the Constitution reserves the process of “Impeachment” for. The provision specifically identifies “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States.” LectLaw defines “all civil officers of the United States” this way: “All officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy.” [See: https://www.lectlaw.com/def/c236.htm].

Clearly, members of Congress are not subject to the Impeachment process. Each house of Congress has its own set of rules to govern conduct, breach of conduct, and punishment.

Justia US Law explains even further what the drafters of the Constitution and our Founders envisioned with Impeachment:

“During the debate in the First Congress on the “removal” controversy, it was contended by some members that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the government from his post, but Madison and others contended that this position was destructive of sound governmental practice, and the view did not prevail. Impeachment, said Madison, was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.” While the language of Section 4 covers any “civil officer” in the executive branch, and covers judges as well, it excludes military officers, and the precedent was early established that it does not apply to members of Congress. [See: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/48-persons-subject-to-impeachment.html].

Also notice that the operative words in Article II, Section 4 are “shall be removed from office.” And that’s what it’s all about, right? It’s about removing such an officer (and here we are specifically referring to the President of the United States) because of some horrendous conduct that is so shocking and repulsive as to erode general confidence, on a bi-partisan basis, in his ability to continue as the Chief Executive of the United States.

The provisions in the Constitution, which as we shall see, are written in simple and plain language, and without any detail, were designed to mirror the process of removal that was followed in Great Britain in the 14th century. Alexander Hamilton explains this in his essay, Federalist No. 65.

The purpose of Impeachment, therefore, is not to shame the president, insult him, demean him, tarnish his name or his legacy, diminish his likability with the American people, or to erode his chances of re-election. And it most certainly isn’t the process to use to undue a legitimate and constitutional election – to reverse the decision of the American people and the Electoral College at the ballot box, the sacred venue of the people to exert their voice in government. The purpose is to address a most serious and egregious violation (criminal or otherwise – “treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor”) and remove him from office because of it.

Democrats, as always, ignore the Constitution.

The Constitution gives the US House of Representatives the sole power to impeach the president (that is, to bring charges against him) and it makes the Senate the sole body to try him on those impeachment charges. That is, the Senate alone has the power to convict or acquit the President on the charges.

So what is the “process” of Impeachment? Clearly, and expressly, it is a 2-step process that takes place in the most powerful branch to counter the Executive – the Legislative branch.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides: “The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.”

Article I, Section 3 provides: “The Senate shall have the sole power to TRY all impeachments.”

This latter provision necessarily implies something extremely important – it implies that Due Process is required in the Senate “trial.” In other words, the President, like any other civil officer of the United States who has impeachment charges brought against him (or her), has the right to address the charges, the right to address those who brought the charges against him, and in general, the right of Due Process.

Due Process is one of the essential cornerstones of our American society. It passes down from the British system which hails a sordid history where kings abused the rights of their subjects and in fact, targeted their political opponents to silence them. “Due Process” guarantees that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Citizens are entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures to secure said rights of life, liberty, or property (or other rights offered to citizens). Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. Here is an example we can all appreciate: Suppose, for example, state law recognizes the right of every student to exercise the tenets of their religion (as long as it doesn’t interfere with or burden the learning environment). Before the state could deny, for example, a student from wearing a cross or using a backpack that displays an image of the crucifixion, it would have to provide fair procedures, i.e. “due process.”

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” And the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.

Regarding the recent impeachment of Donald Trump, he clearly had a right at stake. He campaigned for the office of the presidency (like no other candidate ever did, by the way) and he won. He was duly and constitutionally elected to the office by the American people and our Electoral College system.

In short, Trump had a right to the Presidency.

And House Democrats, out of hatred, political ambition, and extreme anger and desperate frustration, tried to deny him this right by passing two ridiculous Articles of Impeachment – (1) Abuse of Power, and (2) Obstruction of Congress.

According to the Impeachment process, according to the Constitution, the Senate was obligated to give President Trump his “day in court,” so to speak. And his legal team (including the esteemed attorneys Jay Sekulow, Pat Cippolone, Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Pam Bondi, Pat Philbin, and Robert Ray) did an absolutey brilliant job.

I was lucky and honored to have been ale to sit in the Senate chambers to observe the proceedings. What an experience to observe such a historical event.

The Constitution doesn’t provide much detail or insight into what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor” sufficient to warrant removal from office, so we look to our nation’s history to see what past attempts at impeachment have taught us.

First, we should note that Impeachment was always intended as a process that was hardly ever to be used. It was to be reserved for the most egregious of behavior. Ken Starr addressed this in the remarks he delivered to the Senate. He explained that Impeachment was intended to be used, if ever, maybe every century. But something happened in the latter part of the 20th century to “weaponize” impeachment. He described it as “The Age of Impeachment.” It began, he explained, with Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal cover-up that he engaged so aggressively in.

President Richard Nixon was not impeached, as it turned out, but he was threatened with it. Congress was getting ready to bring articles of impeachment against him, including, of course, “Obstruction of Justice.” Nixon was convinced that too many representatives and senators, from both sides, were so disgusted and repulsed by how aggressively he obstructed justice during the Watergate investigation (obstructed the Starr investigation, as Independent Counsel), that they would have easily voted to impeach and then remove him. And so he decided to reign – to save face.

That would have been an actual and authentic exercise of the Impeachment process. Richard Nixon clearly used terrible judgement and used the full power of his office and the power of the federal government to cover up some illegality perpetrated by others (ultimately for his benefit in the upcoming presidential election).

Impeachment of a President has occurred in our nation’s history only three times – with Andrew Johnson (1868), Bill Clinton (1998), and Donald Trump (2019). None of them were removed from office, even though impeachment charges were brought against them by the House. Johnson came the closest to being impeached, and we’ll look more closely into how that happened.

First, let’s look at the impeachment of President Bill Clinton to see what it teaches us about the kinds of crimes that warrant removal from office. As mentioned earlier, Kenneth Starr, a brilliant and respected attorney, was appointed as the Special Counsel to investigate the charges that stemmed from Clinton’s sexual conduct (that is, misconduct) and especially from the sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee who was sexually assaulted by then Arkansas Governor Clinton. Ken Starr found eleven felony charges that Clinton was guilty of and, as he summed up in his famous Starr Report: “The President has pursued a strategy of (i) deceiving the American people and Congress in January 1998, (ii) delaying and impeding the criminal investigation for seven months, and (iii) deceiving the American people and Congress again in August 1998.” His repeated false statements to the American people about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky “represents substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.”

The House of Representatives took up Starr’s Report and compiled the felony charges into four Articles of Impeachment. The House only approved of two of them: (1) Lying Under Oath (“perjury”), and (2) Obstruction of Justice. The charges stemmed from the sexual harassment suit filed by Paula Jones, and specifically, arose out of Clinton’s testimony before a grand jury. The testimony addressed his harassment of Ms. Jones and his relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was impeached by the House by bi-partisan support: He was impeached on the “Perjury” charge (228-206) and on the “Obstruction of Justice” charge (221-212). His presidency was saved in the Senate. All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted “not guilty” on both charges, and were joined by Republicans as well. He was acquitted by the Senate.

I didn’t agree with the Senate’s vote regarding President Clinton’s conduct. I saw him perverting his obligation to the Office of the Presidency and subjugating it in order to hide his sexual misconduct and to hopefully continue it. I interpreted the results of the Senate’s vote either of two ways: (1) First, I assumed the Senators didn’t believe Clinton’s conduct – as bad and derelict as it was – was serious enough and of the type to warrant removing him from office. Sure, it was bad conduct… very bad. It evidenced a lifetime of poor judgement and sexual predation, but it was of a personal nature and the Senate should understand that and excuse it. I didn’t buy that. It was of a serial nature. He simply had no will power or any other power to decline his sexual urges, even when it touched on his work in the White House Oval Office. (2) Second, I assumed the Senators were simply voting along partisan lines, which clearly the Democrats did. As I mentioned above, none of the Senate Democrats voted to convict.

But Clinton did face some degree of justice. Being a notable attorney, a state Governor, a US president, a Rhodes scholar, he proved his skills were more adept at lying. He was immediately disbarred and his license to practice before the Supreme Court was taken away.

So, whether it was politically partisan or not, it appears that Democrats didn’t believe that conduct as willfully deceptive and sexually predacious as Clinton’s was of a nature sufficient to remove a president from office.

Next, let’s look to see where Impeachment was first used as a “weapon” for strictly political reasons. That would be the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1686.

In 1864, Abraham Lincoln won re-election. He had run as the Republican Party’s first presidential candidate in 1860, but he was looking to expand his base in 1864. Adding Andrew Johnson to the ticket was just the way he would do so.

Johnson proved to be a sharp and independent thinker. This was most evident following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln when Southern states began to secede. While the secession convention met in Charleston, South Carolina in December 1869, Johnson addressed the Senate and proclaimed his allegiance to the Union. He was born in North Carolina to a poor family but when he was still young, he and his family moved to Tennessee. Johnson was a Democrat and didn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with Lincoln.

Tennessee seceded in 1861, but Johnson decided to remain in Washington.. In March of 1862, President Lincoln rewarded Johnson’s loyalty with an appointment as military governor of Tennessee. When Lincoln sought a second presidential term in 1864 and needed the support of “Union Democrats” (as opposed to “Southern Democrats”), he chose Johnson as his running mate. He chose a Democrat as a running mate. Johnson became Vice-President on March 4, 1865, and just forty-two days later, after Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, he was sworn in as President of the United States.

At first things went well. It appeared, from the Radical Republicans, that President Johnson was a god-send. Relations between he and the Republicans was quite well. However, soon Johnson’s views on mending the Union and on Reconstruction became clear and they were not in line at all with the Republican plan. Johnson opposed political rights for freedmen and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders. The president looked for every opportunity to block action by the Radical Republicans and freely used his veto power.. It became obvious that had no interest in compromise. When Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then vetoed the Freedmen’s Bureau bill in February of 1866, he officially broke any final ties with his Republican opponents in Congress. They responded with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, promising civil rights to freed slaves and then guaranteeing them the right to vote. In March of 1867 Radical Republicans also passed, over Johnson’s presidential veto, the Tenure of Office Act which was designed to limit the president’s ability to shape his cabinet by requiring that both appointments and dismissals be approved by the Senate. The bill was a clear unconstitutional exercise of legislative power – as violative of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Johnson’s biggest point of contention was with a particularly nasty hold-over from Lincoln’s cabinet – Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War. Stanton was a bad guy – a very bad guy. He supported total war against the South, supported General Sherman’s devastating treatment of the southern states, supported his “scorched Earth policy (as Lincoln did), and supported his “March to the Sea” (an overt act of supremacy and over-kill). Stanton supported strong punishment of the former Confederate States and demanded total control of the those vanquished states. According to Stanton, they would not be permitted a seamless transition back into the Union.

When Johnson tried repeatedly to remove Stanton, Congress responded quickly by passing the Tenure of Office Act. Stanton, a Radical Republican, was critical to the Republican plan to re-make the Union after the Civil War.

By mid-1867, Johnson’s enemies in Congress were repeatedly promoting impeachment. Johnson would have to go. The precipitant event that resulted in a third and successful impeachment action was the firing Stanton. Stanton was not aligned with the President and persisted in opposing his Reconstruction policies. Johnson hoped to replace him with Ulysses S. Grant, whom Johnson believed to be more in line with his own political thinking. In August of 1867, while Congress was in recess, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed Grant as secretary of war ad interim. When the Senate opposed Johnson’s actions and reinstated Stanton in the fall, Grant resigned, fearing punitive action and possible consequences for his own presidential ambitions. Furious with his congressional opponents, Johnson fired Stanton and informed Congress of this action, then named Major General Lorenzo Thomas, a long-time foe of Stanton, as interim secretary. Stanton promptly had Thomas arrested for illegally seizing his office.

Johnson believed the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional [and Congress must have ultimately agreed. It repealed the law in 1887 and the US Supreme Court, while evaluating the constitutionality of a similar law in the case Myers v. United States (1926), stated that the Tenure of Office Act was likely unconstitutional] and so he didn’t take it seriously as a bar to him getting rid of the pesky Stanton.

And that’s all Congress needed to finally bring, in their minds, a solid case of impeachment against Johnson. In 1868, Congress brought eleven articles of impeachment against him, most of them stemming from his suspension of Stanton – his alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Article 1 stated that Johnson ordered Stanton removed with the intent to violate the act. Articles 2, 3 and 8 alleged that the appointment of Thomas, to replace Stanton, without the advice and consent of the Senate was a further violation of the Constitution. And so their political assassination of Johnson proceeded.

In the Senate, the vote fell short by one. The votes of all Senators was carefully noted and it was clear that Johnson would have been convicted. But at the last minute, Senator Edmund Gibson Ross of Kansas, decided not to vote to convict but rather to acquit. And thus, Johnson was acquitted and allowed to remain in office by one vote. The reason given by those who voted to acquit was that they “could not agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President.”

In other words, to convict Johnson on the specious charges brought by the rabid Radical Republicans in the House would be to plunge the country in a constitutional crisis.

That was 1868.

History repeated itself these past two months. As it was done with Andrew Johnson, angry and desperate political opponents weaponized the impeachment option for purely partisan political purposes.

In our history, twenty government officials have been impeached – including the three presidents I mentioned. Eight of them have been found guilty and have been removed from office – ALL FEDERAL JUDGES.

 

References:

“Civil Officer,” in Lectlaw. Referenced at: https://www.lectlaw.com/def/c236.htm

“Persons Subject to Impeachment,” in Justia US Law. Referenced at: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/48-persons-subject-to-impeachment.html

“Due Process,” in Cornell Law School. Referenced at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The Starr Report (Full report submitted to the House of Representatives by Special Counsel Kenneth Starr on September 9, 1998 – https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/srprintable.htm

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868),” United States Senate. Referenced at: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Federal Judiciary is Most Responsible for the Government Tyranny that so Clearly Threatens our Liberty

JUDICIAL TYRANNY - mean old judge

by Diane Rufino, January 13, 2020

This article comes from a few remarks I made to introduce my last TEA Party meeting. The ultimate topic, to be discussed by a few candidates running for state office, was the problem they see (if any) with our state court system and our federal court system. I wanted to provide an introduction, making sure our members were clear as to the power the courts have managed to assume and exert over the many years.

For those who live in North Carolina, both tracts of the court system have done great damage to the conservative values that we hold dear in this state and have terribly and recklessly undermined and eroded the notions of “democracy” that we are not only entitled to but which rely on. To many who live here, the courts are seen as progressive rogue elements who operate outside the constitution, outside any sense of oath or loyalty to the country, absent any sense of duty, and for the sole purpose of using their positions to make the types of changes that THEY, in their personal and political views, think it necessary to make. In other words, we see the courts as independent agents who are more self-interested than anything else. Just as law schools have morphed into centers of “Social Justice’ (teaching its students to find social justice and racial justice issues everywhere, including where there are none), the judges they turn out are on a quest to seek and effect changes to further social justice. If they can find an explanation that can be interpreted as “racist” or “discriminatory,” that is what they will hang their ruling on. If they alone see such an interpretation, again that will be the basis of their ruling. The discrimination (which was bad, I’m not denying it) of African-Americans in North Carolina post-Civil War and during the Jim Crow era, and the inhumane treatment of them in the 50’s and early 60’s when they dared to protest for voting rights is long gone. That era is clearly gone. But certain social justice warriors (ie, judges) seem to want to make sure that it lives on.

The North Carolina state constitution outlines the powers of our state government and in Article I (“Declaration of Rights”) lists the rights that government must respect for each individual (plus a few that are clearly unconstitutional but remain as a result of the coercion of the victorious northern invaders after the Civil War via the Reconstruction Acts). Article IV of the US Constitution reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Wow, that Article IV is powerful. And it sort of shows rather clearly how deranged President Abraham Lincoln was and how overly ambitious he was to keep the money flowing from the agricultural southern states to the northern businessmen.

A “republican form of government” is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. Each southern state seceded from the Union after first calling a convention (just as they did to consider and debate the proposed US Constitution) and selecting delegates from among the people themselves to consider that sole issue, and then issuing a Declaration of Secession. They followed up by writing new state constitutions, if necessary, and then meeting to decide the question of whether to form into a new union (The Confederate States of America), which they agreed to, and finally wrote up a new national constitution. Most legal and constitutional scholars will comment that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America was a better constitution than our US Constitution (and that opinion has nothing to do with slavery). So, we see that Lincoln violated Article IV by making sure that the United States government did NOT guarantee a republican form of government to the 11 southern states that chose to secede. Next, Article IV guarantees that the federal government will protect them against invasion. But again, Lincoln ignored that promise as well. The only invasion that the South suffered was from the federal government itself. If Lincoln thought the Southern states were merely victims of domestic violence and insurrection, there was nothing to support such an assertion. There was no application by the legislatures of the states to the federal government for protection. Lincoln simply promoted a fake view of southern secession, characterizing it in terms that inflamed the passions of those in the north into taking the action he alone deemed absolutely necessary. (Well, there were others who agreed with him, such as his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton – an evil and ambitious man).

It’s important – very important – to remember that Lincoln never accepted the fact that the southern states willfully and thoughtfully left the Union, exercising a natural right RESERVED to every sovereign, a right articulated in our Declaration of Independence, and a right correctly characterized as an “extra-constitutional right” (reserved to every state under the Tenth Amendment). In fact, they did everything exactly as the original 13 colonies did when they separated (ie, seceded) from Great Britain and organized into a union of states for mutual protection, strength, and bargaining power with the countries of Europe and Asia. Lincoln characterized the action of the 11 southern states as a collective act of rebellion – of domestic upheaval. Of course, nothing could have been farther from the truth. Those states took the calculated steps they took because they chose NOT to act in rebellion against their fellow northern states but rather to simply leave, peacefully, and to re-form a Union based on a government that serves their interests far better (and without open hostility).

The cornerstone of the united States of America is the US Constitution. It is the cornerstone, along with state constitutions, of our Rule of Law. Each constitution memorializes what the People expect from government – the powers delegated to it, the powers denied to it, and the essential individual rights that it is obligated to respect and forbidden to violate or burden. The equal application of the Rule of Law and the memorialization of individual rights guarantees persons in our country that they can live freely. It is this understanding that she reinforce to all of us the immeasurable importance of the US Constitution (and then the individual state constitution). The Constitution is OUR document. It was written for us and continues to provide as best as possible a shield to keep government at bay and out of our lives as much as possible. It is one of enumerated powers only, and therefore any additional power the government assumes or has assumed over the years has been done by abusing power, “usurping” powers during times of national emergencies, and most commonly, with the blessing of the federal judiciary. Since government has grown abusive and tyrannical over the years, the Constitution protects us far less than it did in the years post Founding and pre-Civil War. Yet, it continues to be all we have to keep the government within certain boundaries in our lives, with our liberties, and relating to our property.

This is why conservatives fight so hard to make sure the Constitution is understood and upheld. This was one of the main reasons why the TEA Party was formed back in 2009.

The TEA Party movement was founded for absolutely all the right reasons. I hear people mock the TEA Party movement, mock TEA Party principles, mock TEA Party folks as loonies, call TEA Partiers “racists,” and, chide groups into changing their name so as “not to offend” folks. I don’t fall for this. Anyone who has a bad opinion of the TEA Party and of the movement in general needs to submit to an intense course on American history and an intense course on US Government and Civics (not the progressive-type course that indoctrinates liberals). The origins of the TEA Party go back to an appreciation for the Constitution given to us by our Founding Fathers and its framers. All of a sudden, people all over the country realized that the Constitution had been framed with great genius and wisdom. And they also realized that all of the country’s problems stemmed from the all-too-obvious fact that the federal government had perverted our republic by unilaterally expanding its powers beyond the boundaries and limitations specified in the Constitution, and including the Bill of Rights, and adding usurped powers to its list of legitimate powers.

Every time the federal government ignores the Tenth Amendment (“the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the State or to the People””) and the Ninth Amendment (“the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny others retained by the People”) and assumes powers NOT specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, it USURPS or TAKES those powers away from the one they rightfully belong to. For example, the federal government (thru the Supreme Court, a federal court) took control of marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, claiming it alone had the power to declare gay marriage equivalent to heterosexual marriage. In doing so, it usurped the power to regulate marriage from the States, where it belonged and had belonged for ages. When the federal courts continue to strike down our legitimate Voter ID laws, as they have been doing (continually crying “racism,” “racism,” “racism”), they USURP the rightful power of the state to regulate elections for a rightful purpose. They continue to substitute their personal opinions and views for those of our elected state legislators and they continue to ignore how the issue of voter and election fraud permeated the 2010 election and was almost single-handedly responsible for ushering in the historic Republican majority (first since Reconstruction).

Remember the story of Ben Franklin leaving the Philadelphia Convention back in September 1787… A woman asked him: “What type of government have you given us?” And he responded: “A republic ma’am, if you can keep it.” When we look at how far out of control the federal government has gotten, we must go back to that afternoon and back to that comment and ask if we are doing what we need to do to keep our republic. We know that everything the Democrats are doing, everything they stand for, is designed to transform our republic from one based on individual freedom to one based, at least in good part, on socialist principles.

What is a REPUBLIC? Do we really know what is meant when our Founders gave us a form of government known as a Republic?

A Republic is essentially a government system whereby supreme power is held by the people and they exercise their influence and their interests and views through their elected representatives. In other words, a republic has a democratic element but that element is exercised at the ballot box. It is also exercised by citizens attending public meetings and legislative sessions, taking notes and publishing them to inform the community and by making their voices heard through comments at the session and through peaceful protests. Demonstrations, protests, acts of civil disobedience… these are further ways to exercise democratic influence in our republic system.

The TEA Party movement was started for concerned citizens to get active and to get involved in the government. Reminding government that it belongs to the people, to serve them and their interests is what we must do. After all, if we want “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” we must be vigilante – especially when it comes to the selection of our representatives.

The word “republic” derives from the Latin phrase res publica, or “the people’s concern.” It suggests a measure of popular involvement in government. And the authors of the Constitution were radically republican and believed that the only legitimate form of government was one in which public authority derived entirely from the people. We saw this very language in the Declaration of Independence.

And so we look at some of the ways our republic has lost its original character and how our government system has been transformed from one of limited power to one of concentrated power, and almost all of them involve recklessness, disloyalty, and complicity by the federal judiciary. Yes, what I am saying is that our government has become tyrannical and it has become so, to a great extent, because the federal courts have sanctioned such abusive powers.

A government is tyrannical when it passes and enforces laws without proper constitutional authority. It is tyrannical when it imposes mandatory duties upon its citizens without legal authority or when it treats groups of citizens unequally. It has become tyrannical because the federal courts have re-interpreted language in the Constitution, ignored other language, or inserted new language unilaterally into it. (This is what the “living, breathing document” justices have done over the years). It has become tyrannical after years and years of illicit changes to the Constitution sanctioned by progressive courts not wanting to faithfully interpret the Constitution as much as they wanted to bring about social change in our country. It has become tyrannical each time the federal government wished to assume new powers or to claim “preemption” over an area belonging to the States and the federal courts provided support by using fancy sophistry (or as Scalia used to call it – “legal gymnastics – lacking any foundation in law”) in its rulings to make it so. We saw a prime example of this in Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the Obamacare ruling. It was the most horrific and tortuous example of legal reasoning. It has become tyrannical when it uses its branches not effect the powers articulated in the Constitution but rather to make sweeping social change in the country, even when it goes against the very fabric of society in the individual states. We saw this when the Supreme Court ignored the entire history of abortion laws and policies to find a right in the Constitution for a woman to murder her unborn child. This ruling, Roe v. Wade, ushered in a new age of Women’s Rights – the right of a woman to rid her body of a growing child for any reason at all, including because the pregnancy is causing her stress, giving her a headache or causing her to lose sleep, or because it is giving her anxiety. The government has become tyrannical because the one body constitutionally tasked with passing laws (the US Congress) has been allowed to outsource certain legislative powers to unelected, un-accountable agencies, and the courts have sanctioned them. It has become tyrannical because the courts have asserted a power they were not intended to have – the power to compel, or force compliance with their rulings. We saw this in the court orders forcing the South to establish school districts and to show that such districts have been drawn to establish acceptable racial quotas. Some such court orders are still in effect today – approximately 65 years after the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. The government has become tyrannical because judges have the ability to force or compel individuals to do something that they themselves think should be done. The Constitution does not empower courts to fashion remedies, yet they do it all the time. We saw this with the infamous “school bussing” ruling in 1971, where school districts would be required to bus students around to actively and affirmatively achieve court-required racial quotas. Another example – a school official can be forced to admit certain students or to retain certain students even though they may pose a risk to the safety of other students. In other words, judges know better. And finally, the government is tyrannical because judges and justices have now become legislators from the bench, thus blurring the separation of powers, and allowing unelected, un-accountable men in black robes to make law, make policy, and to dictate what the other branches can do (depending on how it affects their political beliefs). We call this Judicial Activism.

What’s worse is that the federal judiciary follows the policy of “stare decisis” which means that once the Supreme Court has ruled on an issue, the Court must continue to follow it. Essentially what this policy says is that the objective of the federal judiciary is to defend its own past decisions – including ones that are illegal, unconstitutional. abusive, outside the scope of judicial power, ridiculous, have no basis in constitutional interpretation, or amount to Judicial Activism.

In explaining the powers articulated in the Constitution, in such a way that the ratifying conventions in each state could understand and rely upon in their debates, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote a series of essays titled the Federalist Papers. In one of the most famous of these essays, Federalist No. 78, Hamilton wrote that the people would have nothing to fear from the federal judiciary. He wrote that it would always be the weakest branch, tasked with only an opinion, as opposed to the legislature which the power to enact laws and the executive which has the explicit power to enforce laws. Others have echoed the same general theme and have warned that we would have nothing to fear from a federal judiciary that acts on its own – as an independent branch. However, if the judiciary sets out to support the legislative branch or sets out to support the executive branch, then the judiciary should be feared. In such instances, the courts have already decided what the outcome will be, or should be.

Yet, we see the federal courts, acting on their own, have become the most powerful of the three branches, able to bring down both the president and the Congress – with no authority above it to check any abuse.

Why do I bring this up? Because if we ever hope to hold onto our republic – the one our Founders gave us; the one that Benjamin Franklin praised to the woman outside the state house in Philadelphia – we must be willing to recognize that the judiciary is the branch that has been most responsible for the large, bloated, tyrannical government that we have now and the one that has been too timid and reckless to keep it confined within the confines of the Constitution. We must be willing to speak out truthfully and boldly against every bad court ruling. We must expose the abuse. And we must take the action necessary to make sure such rulings are corrected by other branches of government, corrected by judicial impeachment charges, and otherwise not enforced upon We the Free People of the United States.

After all, the government of the United States is still a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” We lost hope of this for many years but for the past 4 years, we have been feeling a bit more encouraged. It started when Donald J. Trump said these words in his inaugural address:

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

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

As long as we continue to remain active and we continue to stand for the Constitution and for the rightful role of government, as long as we remain vigilante and critical of judicial rulings, and as long as we fight for the man who fights every day for all of us, we can never be forgotten. We will be remembered for helping to take our country back.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MODEL Resolution to Recognize Second Amendment Supremacy in Counties

WE THE PEOPLE - Protect the Constitution (Gun Protection)

by Diane Rufino, January 2019

RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE SECOND AMENDMENT SUPREMACY  in ___________ COUNTY

Resolution opposing any federal or state law that has the effect of restricting the individual right of a citizen of sound mind in North Carolina to keep and bear arms as recognized and protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina state constitution.

WHEREAS, the colonies in North America fought for their independence from Great Britain united under the principal of Individual Sovereignty, which holds that individuals have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property and other forms of Happiness, that they have the right to design and form an appropriate government to secure and protect those rights, and they have the right always to alter or abolish that government in favor of one that better serves its beneficial purpose. These rights were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence; and

WHEREAS, the federal government in the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (the Bill of Rights) has been forced and tasked to recognize these rights, including other liberty and civil rights, and instructed to refrain from violating or burdening said rights; and

WHEREAS, the individual States in their individual state constitutions, have also recognized these inalienable rights, including other liberty and civil rights; and

WHEREAS, the paramount right to Life also implies the equally paramount right to protect it, defend it, and to safeguard it; and

WHEREAS, the gravest threat to Life is by firearms being used by an individual or group or army that has an intent to inflict grievous injury or to take a life; and

WHEREAS, because the gravest threat to Life is by firearms, and because the history of England/Great Britain and colonial America under the reign of King George III has confirmed that firearms have been used by governments to suppress, coerce, intimidate, silence, and threaten its citizenry (especially those it deemed to be a threat), our Founders deemed it necessary to include the Second Amendment;

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment was the amendment that was proposed most forcibly by the individual states in their ratification conventions; and

WHEREAS, the right of self-defense is acknowledged in the Second Amendment and in similar amendments in state constitutions that assert both the individual right to keep and bear arms (for self-defense and self-protection) and the collective right to do the same (when assembled in a militia to protect the state); and

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment and similar amendments in state constitutions acknowledge that individuals have the right to use the same caliber of firearms that an evil-intentioned individual, group, or even the government has access to; and

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees: “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”; and

WHEREAS, the words “Shall not” mean “Must not,” and therefore the Second Amendment can be read as follows: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, MUST NOT be infringed”; and

WHEREAS, Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina state constitution guarantees: “Militia and the Right to Bear Arms. 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice”; and

WHEREAS, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property is regarded as an Inalienable Right by the People of _______________ County; and

WHEREAS, the right to keep and bear firearms is a protected right ONLY when those firearms are used for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, self-protection (of self and family, as well as others unable to protect themselves), and NOT when used to commit acts of violence, to torture or intimidate others, to further criminal activity, or to frighten others; and

WHEREAS, the People have a God-given right to protect themselves and an obligation to provide for the common defense; and

WHEREAS, a well-armed citizenry is the best protection against tyrannical government; and

WHEREAS, the right to self-defense and specifically (for purposes of this resolution), the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose, is an inherent right and therefore protected by Due Process. That is, the right cannot be denied to an individual of sound mind and body without a full opportunity to defend it. Consequently, nothing above should be taken to protect the right to keep and bear arms to an individual of unsound mind who has been proven to pose a threat to himself/herself and to others; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), affirmed the operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” and therefore is the controlling clause. The Court further affirmed that the fundamental or central individual right is unconnected with service in a militia and is associated with the right to self-defense and for self-protection, which are lawful purposes; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), affirmed that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, and

WHEREAS, the right enshrined in the Second Amendment and in Article I, Section 30 of the NC state constitution needs no justification such as economic, recreational, etc for it is as inherent and fundamental a right as the right to life itself (also needing no justification); and

WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 78, asserts, “…No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”; and

WHEREAS, Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788 wrote, “Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American… the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”; and

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the People of _________________ County to declare their strong affirmation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 30 of the NC state constitution which recognize and guarantee protection for the inalienable and individual right to keep and bear arms; and

WHEREAS, the People wish to remind those in local government that each official has taken an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and the North Carolina state constitution, as well as those laws passed in faithful and legal adherence to such constitutions.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all federal laws, regulations, judicial opinions, and other edicts for the Country at Large which pretend to restrict THE PEOPLES’ arms in any fashion whatsoever are unlawful as in violation of our Declaration of Independence; and are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States; and as in violation of the Second Amendment; and

AND BE IT RESOLVED that all North Carolina state laws, regulations, judicial opinions, and other edicts purporting to apply to the State at Large which pretend to restrict THE PEOPLES’ arms in any fashion whatsoever are unlawful as in violation of our Declaration of Independence; and are unconstitutional as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the United States [those clauses permitting the Congress to require Citizens of the States to be armed and trained]; as in violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and as in violation of Article I, §30 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina; and

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the _____________ County Board of Supervisors that the Board intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be armed and to that effect, will encourage citizens to register for weapons training and firearms safety training (and perhaps even set aside funding for such programs); and

FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the good and decent People of ____________ County encourage their Sheriffs to use the aforementioned truths to guide their exercise of discretion in their jobs; that said truths will support and guide their sound discretion to not enforce any unconstitutional firearms law against any citizen of sound mind and body; and

AND BE IT RESOLVED that the good and decent People of ______________ County demand that the Board of County Commissioners do not appropriate funds for the expansion of prisons for the purpose of incarceration of individuals arrested for violating unconstitutional gun control laws or for capital construction of building space and purchase of storage systems to store weapons seized pursuant to any unlawful piece of legislation.

 

SIGNATURES:

 

_________________________          _________________________            _________________________

 

_________________________          _________________________            _________________________

 

_________________________          _________________________            _________________________

 

**** Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, has a video out about local Second Amendment Protection Resolutions and about “Second Amendment Sanctuaries.”  It is titled “The Best Second Amendment Resolution By Far,” and addresses an excellent Model Resolution written by the profound legal expert Publius Huldah. Check the video out.  –   https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/01/the-best-2nd-amendment-resolution-by-far-so-far/

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

VOTER ID LAWS - by state

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

by Diane Rufino, January 4, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here is the article from the CAROLINA JOURNAL –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

References:

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

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

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Christmas Message from the Rufino Family

XMAS PIC - wise men following the star to the manger

by Diane Rufino, December 25, 2019

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

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

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

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

John Winthrop brought this message to America in 1630 when he delivered a prayer to the Puritan settlers aboard the Arabella, as they were about to reach Massachusetts Bay Colony. He explained that the only way to convince others of the power of their faith and the benefit of the lessons of Christianity was to adhere to those lessons in their lives and have them guide their communities. He referred to that experiment as “a shining city on a hill.”
In offering a model for the Puritan settlement (“A Model of Christian Charity”), he first offered the reasons for it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

PHOTOLAB PIC - CHristmas 2019

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

IMPEACHMENT – Where Do We Go From Here?

IMPEACHMENT - how it works

by Diane Rufino, December 23, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He further wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

References:

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

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

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

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

TRUMP - wrestling belt

(Photo from Twitter)

by Diane Rufino, December 18, 2019

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

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

This is re-affirmed to us every single day.

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

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

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

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment