by Diane Rufino, January 22, 2021

This article is dedicated to our great Founding Fathers – men who had the courage, the foresight, and the wisdom to secure the freedom that I exercise and enjoy every single day.


The purpose of this article is to remind Patriots and others who love this country that all is not lost. This article in essence, plain and simple, is a call to action! The answer and solution lies in the very document that articles the principles and natural law philosophy which define our country and the very foundation upon which she rests — The Declaration of Independence. The reason people don’t know this is because for too many decades now, the serious study of our founding documents has been removed from our public school curriculum

The solution lies in the first and second paragraphs of the Declaration. In the first paragraph, Thomas Jefferson boldly proclaimed:  “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.         

In the second paragraph, Jefferson explained: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.…. “   The reason why citizens need to be able to shed an abusive government is to protect and continue to secure their natural and God-given rights.

Abolishing this government is an absolute must. I have little doubt that it will shed any of its powers, divest itself of unconstitutional offices and agencies, decrease taxation so it doesn’t allow itself to spend for unconstitutional purposes, transform the federal judiciary into a system of courts that strictly interprets the Constitution (citing the Federalist Papers, the writings of any of its drafters or signers, or any of the debates in the state ratifying conventions in their “opinions”). I have no doubt that any congressman or senator would have any desire to limit his or her power, or that of the leviathan that he or she works for.  Power corrupts. The other option is for the country to split up. Yes, I’m talking about secession or a negotiated and peaceful split. This option might be preferable in order to accommodate the diametrically opposed philosophy (government-wise) of its people. And yes, the very words and truths articulated in the Declaration of Independence provide the basis for this.

Now, as we have learned over the years —- talk is cheap. And the protests of elder, white-haired limping Americans is futile and laughable. Sure, we have the precious right of free speech and the right to petition our government (including protest). These rights are not only in the Bill of Rights but they are in the very FIRST amendment. We’ve seen how ineffective our speech, our massive protests, and our magnificent DC marches have been. More than anything, they have served to make us nothing more than fools, despicables….  domestic terrorists. 

And now we have learned that our popular voice (ie, our vote) doesn’t work either. It can be bought, replicated, stolen, misappropriated from a death certificate, or simply fabricated by mal-intentioned party operatives.

But violence, threats, leaking sensitive information, looting, property damage, and even murder….  now that’s something. That is what works.

Violence and destruction does work, doesn’t it? Government recognizes it, responds to it (positively), and often encourages it (usually for its own purposes). And that’s the problem, isn’t it.?  Government ignores the peaceful protests, the well-meaning petitions, the thoughtful supplications, and the intelligent debates  but responds to the barbaric gang-style outbursts of hoodlum-types and ignoranuses. How are we to expect, or even hope to expect, that peaceful protests , well-meaning petitions, thoughtful supplications, intelligent debates, and sincere remonstrances will be effective?  Surely they can’t be the only “weapons of choice” in this novel scheme called America. Surely our Founding Fathers didn’t think so.

Ambrose Bierce wisely stated: “Democracy is preserved with 3 boxes:  the ballot box,  the jury box, and the cartridge box.”

Surely our Founding Fathers didn’t expect such options to be the end all- be all in the defense of our liberties and in the vigilante oversight of our government…. one that has quickly become corrupt and tyrannical. After all, they certainly didn’t limit themselves to those options. We just need to look at the fiery speech delivered by Patrick Henry’s speech on March 23, 1775, at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia: 

“We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!”

The point I am trying to make is that while speech is cheap (and is actually an essential protected right), it is action that Patriots MUST take. They absolutely must commit themselves to engage in mass civil disobedience (at the very least; for example, a nationwide protest involving not paying federal income tax) and even to commit violence and property destruction for this country. The government has become so badly tyrannical and abusive (as well as undignified and a universal joke) that most people have absolutely no trust or faith in it to do the right thing for decent hard-working Americans – that is, those other than minorities who are stuck in lower-paying jobs or have become generationally- dependent on welfare, or who have placed too much attention on victim hood, illegal immigrants, or those with confused gender issues, This government is hostile to such patriotic hard-working Americans – punishing them with progressive schools, high taxes, property confiscation, and suppression of speech.

James Madison wrote: “If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is, that every nation has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of a host of American martyrs; but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation.”  (September 7, 1793)

And so, again, the solution lies within the first and second paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It is grounded in the laws of Nature, Nature’s God, and in the statement in the second paragraph that establishes the Right of the People to alter or to abolish the government, and to institute a new one that serves only its rightful purposes. After all, as the Declaration acknowledges and establishes: Governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is we, the People. The Declaration of Independence, in a very sense, is the blueprint for the action we must take if we intend to save our original Constitution (with its stated meaning and intent), to continue securing our natural and God-given rights from government intervention, and to save our republic.


In the 12th century in England, the people began to become aware of their rights and to assert them. An early document, the Charter of Liberties of 1100 was written by King Henry I when he ascended to the thrown in that year. It was an early recognition of individual liberties. And then in 1215, the English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta (the “Great Charter”) acknowledging the rights of those in his kingdom and therefore placing limits on his power. In 1649, after King Charles I suspended Parliament (the people’s body; established in the Magna Carta), instigated a civil war, and proved to be an absolute tyrant, Parliament successfully brought charges of treason against him and had him executed for his excessive abuses of power. In 1688, being fed up with the objectionable policies of King James II (including the confiscation of firearms of political opponents),   a group of English Parliamentarians invited the Dutch magistrate William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange) to overthrow the King. They promised a bloodless transition.  intervention. William’s successful invasion with a Dutch fleet and army led to James fleeing to France and abdicating the throne. In December 1688, Parliament appointed William as provisional governor. In 1689, William and his wife Mary (who happened to be King James II’s daughter), were presented with the English Bill of Rights, which was essentially written to have the effect of a contract. William and Mary would lose their right to the throne if they dared to violate or abuse the human rights articulated therein.

All of this history was absorbed into our history, and the repeated charters and remonstrances to the English kings and the subsequent abuses of those documents formed the bases for our founding documents – most especially our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights.

In the 17th century, philosophers like John Locke pondered on such subjects as where our rights come from and what the rightful role of government should be. He was probably the most prominent philosopher of the Enlightenment era. His writings, together with the England’s storied history, influenced our Founding Fathers, especially those who wrote and signed our founding documents, and certainly motivated those to fight for our independence in the American Revolution.

The impact of what our Founders wrote and created to establish this nation is best summed up by Charlotte Cushman in her American Thinker article (July 4, 2016), “Founding Principle of the United States of America: Individual Rights”:

Our country was the first and only country in history that was founded on a brand new idea, the idea that people have rights. These rights are:

• the right to one’s own life (which includes that which one has worked for)

• the right to one’s own liberty (freedom to live the way you want provided you don’t hurt anyone else)

• the right to pursue one’s own happiness (not everyone else’s—yours)

When America was created, there was another new idea — the idea that the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect these rights, to make sure no person violated the rights of another. Government was not there to tell men what to do, or how to live their lives, or to take by force what each man has earned by his own efforts to give to another. Initiation of force was banned from human relationships. The only proper use of force was in retaliation against those who had initiated force or fraud against another. Force was only used as a means of defending rights through three branches of government: the police, the military and the courts. And that’s it.  The purpose of government was to only do that one thing and nothing else.  It was to protect individual rights.

The implementation of these two ideas created something unseen before on the face of the earth. For the first time men were free from other men. They were no longer subservient to a lord, master or king. They could live their lives and pursue their goals independently yet associate with each other voluntarily instead of by force. With individual rights as a guiding principle, all other freedoms fell into place: economic freedom, religious freedom, social freedom, freedom of association, contractual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms and so on.  And look what happened. The United States of America became the happiest, wealthiest, most prosperous, most advanced nation on earth. It was also the most moral country because it recognized individual rights.

The Declaration of Independence is indeed the magnificent charter that defines our nation. We read it’s second paragraph and we instantly become overcome with an intense sense of pride and gratitude.  Or at least we should be. We can feel the sense of entitlement of fundamental liberty and the longing for independence in the words that Thomas Jefferson wrote.  The Declaration is breathtaking in its scope and eloquent in its dialogue.  It’s message is clear:  Government is established by individuals to protect their inalienable rights and since the powers of government are derived from the people for that precise purpose, when the government fails to do so or frustrates the people in their exercise of their liberties, then they have the right – and the duty – to throw off that government and plan for another.  As someone once said: “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.” 

Jefferson wrote that individuals have the rightful expectation that their government will create a climate of protection and happiness for them. This is what each of us as Americans should expect….   not an expectation of money, an “Obama phone,” and other worldly things, but of protection (of our rights and of safety and security from harm from others)

Referring to the rights that all men are born with and entitled to, Jefferson wrote:

     “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

People are meant to be free because of the laws of nature. They derive their rights from nature and not from any government.  As Jefferson wrote: “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

Jefferson emphasized that it was not only the right of the people to abolish an abusive government but a duty.  Individuals have a duty to remind government who is the boss, and in doing so, to preserve our republic and its values and essential principles. Because the Declaration defines the expectations of government in our country and the Constitution provides the safeguards, government itself must be mindful and respectful of the right of the people to abolish it. Additionally, we have a Bill of Rights, which our most passionate of founders fought mightily to have included in the Constitution.  “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights,” as explained by Robert H. Jackson, “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote; they depend on no elections.”  

Perhaps this was Jefferson’s way of reminding Americans that sometimes governments must be abolished in order to preserve human rights.  The British had to do it several times since the Magna Carta was signed. They never lost sight of protections they needed with respect to government. “Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.”

He then went on in the Declaration to acknowledge the weakness in human nature which causes people to suffer the evils and abominations of government instead of standing resolute and abolishing that government. “All experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  

The statement of inalienable rights was a necessary precursor to what would follow, and that was a statement of the reasons why it had become necessary for the “good people” of the American colonies to dissolve their bonds of allegiance to England.  With respect to fundamental individual rights and an expectation of  a ‘respectful’ government,  Jefferson outlined a “history of repeated injuries and usurpations” committed by King George III in order to claim that he was ruling over the colonies as a tyrant.

The list included 27 instances of how King George imposed the will of government on the American colonies and colonists (themselves considered as British subjects) without any of the traditional safeguards that shielded the subjects of England, such as representation in Parliament and the protections of the English Bill of Rights. For example, he interfered with the laws of the colonies, suspended their legislatures, and obstructed their administration of justice. He appointed judges that were sworn to his will alone, incited domestic insurrection among them, destroyed their property, kept troops among them, and forced colonists to house and feed them.  He taxed them without their representation in Parliament, subjected them to jurisdiction that was foreign to their constitution, cut off their trade with all parts of the world, deprived them of the right to a trial by jury, and transported them to England on trumped-up charges and for pretend offenses.

According to our Founders, these were the acts of a tyrant. At the end of the second paragraph in the Declaration, it reads: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”  According to Jefferson, “a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”  He then used the Declaration to accomplish exactly the remedy he wrote just a few paragraphs earlier – to sever their bonds with the government of England and declare the colonies as independent sovereign states.  “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”

While the Declaration is a “declaration” of rights, it is first and foremost, an article of secession.

I bring this up because there was a time when Americans understood the Declaration of Independence and appreciated its significance.  There was a time when our leaders and our judiciary were able to connect the Declaration and Constitution together to be able to understand the role of government and protecting the sanctity of those documents.  The first is the “WHY” the documents matter so much and the latter is the “HOW” to make them relevant again.  Governments are instituted for the sole purpose of securing God-given, “unalienable” rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and they derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” and nowhere else. The Constitution is meant to be read with the principles and truths in the Declaration in mind.

Among the 27 reasons Jefferson listed to justify secession, one in particular struck me: “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.” 

The government, the creation of the people, has become a rogue institution. It protects its own power and not the power of the people. It looks out for the interests of the government and not the interests of the people.  It is supposed to protect the rights of the individual, including the right to be “left alone by government,”  but it continues to take them away.  Our government today no longer resembles the government intended by our Founders and is no longer defined or constrained by our founding documents.

Each time a federal judge considers a case with a “federal question” (meaning it touches on the Constitution, federal law, or treaty), he has the opportunity to make a decision that brings government in line with our founding principles and values or to open the government up to new, expanded, and unforeseen powers.


For those of you of mighty spirit and courage, of immense patriotism and loyalty, of great respect and pride in our Founding documents, and unquestionably duty-bound to preserve the historic republic (established originally in 1781 with the Articles of Confederation) and her principles of individual liberty and limited government,  I implore you to re-dedicate yourselves to the cause of human liberty and to a society that our Founders envisioned, created, and fought for. In doing so, let us re-Declare our Independence from a corrupt and tyrannical government, just as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently did in 1776. 

Contrary to what progressives like to say, our Founding Fathers were far from being evil men. They were, perhaps, the most important men who ever lived. 

It light of this introduction, the purpose of this document is to re-assert the fundamental and everlasting message and principles articulated masterfully in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to the good People of North Carolina, to fellow States (the parties who have been deprived of sovereign power with each injury and usurpation), and to a candid world: 

[List of abuses by King George and Parliament]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.



A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.”    — Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (1791-1792)

People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.”  — Alan Moore, author of the book V for Vendetta 

The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated abuses and usurpations, all having in direct effect of establishing an absolute Tyranny over the States and the People. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to the good People of the several united States (the parties who have been deprived of sovereign power with each injury and usurpation) and to a candid world: 

(1) For totally ignoring the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which explains in detail WHY the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution and how important they were regarded by the States (so much so that several states would not have ratified the Constitution without a promise that a Bill of Rights would be added). The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”  The PURPOSE of the Bill of Rights, not only in essence but in direct wording, was to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of (the federal government’s) powers.”  It is true that some of the amendments are “declaratory clauses” which mean that they are designed to “prevent misconstruction of the Constitution by explaining how the document SHOULD be interpreted.  A good example are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  The rest of the amendments of the Bill of Rights are “restrictive clauses” designed specifically to prevent ABUSE of federal powers by creating external limitations curtailing those powers. Here is a News Flash: No one at the time of our founding thought any of the rights would cease to exist without the approval of the Bill of Rights. In fact, it was widely understood that our rights were endowed by our Creator and a product of our very humanity. Theophilus Parsons perhaps summed it up best during the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention when he said: “No power was given to Congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the People.” Sadly, thanks to the rhetoric of the federal government, government agencies and officials, and political candidates, too many people today don’t understand this, our most essential of founding principles. They have never read the Preamble (and neither have members of government), and hence, they will likely never understand this which is our country’s original purpose. To be clear, the REASON the judicial branch, as well as the other branches, of the government has ignored the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is because it DOES NOT want to limit its powers over the American people and in its operation as a government and its action over the past 200 or so years and borne this out. I suspect that the reason it has weakened and allowed the government to limit the guarantees of freedom and civil rights in these first ten amendments is to ultimately allow the federal government to establish a monopoly over the meaning, intent, and scope of the Constitution – the document that created it and delegated its precise powers.  [See the next item for further thoughts on this matter, and See the next section which specifically addresses violations of the ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights].

(2) For allowing the US Supreme Court and other federal courts to establish a monopoly over the meaning and intent of the Constitution, as the government would have it interpreted, that is.  Federal courts (especially the Supreme Court) – ignoring solemn responsibility of adhering to and interpreting cases strictly according to the Constitution, it has allowed the government to view the Constitution as a “living, breathing document,” thus allowing the federal courts alone to enact social change rather than allow the people to do so when they are ready through the representatives they send to legislate on their behalf. and even worse, to render the Constitution a document that means whatever the government wants it to mean. The courts have rendered it an essentially blank document.  A perfect example is the ruling by the Supreme Court (or should I say, the opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts) in the healthcare case (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012),  In the Court’s blinding desire to uphold the healthcare bill, they expanded the taxing power to punish people for not conforming to conduct that the government wants.  Even though over 70% of Americans don’t want their government to have the power to force particular conduct on them nor believe their Constitution allows it, the Supreme Court did some questionable and detestable legal maneuverings to deny the people their right to define their government.  Another perfect example is the Roe v. Wade opinion (410 U.S. 113 (1973), where the high Court came out with a new right (the right to an abortion), essentially out of thin air, simply for the purpose of allowing women total control over her body so she can either have the personal freedom she wants or to be able to compete equally in business or in the marketplace with a man. It was, safe to say, a manufactured opinion with no grounding whatsoever in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

      The members of the Supreme Court have used their enormous and consequence-free positions in black robes to act unconstitutionally to enact sweeping social change, such as abortion and gay marriage faster than We the People would ordinarily and rightfully accomplish over time through our state and local legislatures, to unconstitutionally enlarge the powers of the federal government, and to, at times, act as the legislative branch by making law.  Again, through its loosey-goosey interpretation of the Constitution (the last check on government), the federal courts have secured a monopoly for the government. Former US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia admitted as much: “Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by due process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution, from the text and even from the traditions of the American people.”  Abraham Lincoln once said: “We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”  Inherent in that statement is the right of the people to get rid of abusive federal judges – those who use personal political philosophy and personal social views to influence their rulings rather than pure constitutional interpretation – rather than have them appointed for life where too much damage can be done. 

      As we should all know, the Constitution sets up three branches of government, with a checks and balances setup. In theory each of the three branches; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, should all have equal power and they should have the ability to stop the other from trampling the rights of the citizens and the principles set forth in the constitution. (And of course, with our system of federalism, the States are the last, and most powerful of checks and balances).  But Thomas Jefferson saw the Judicial branch of the government as the one branch that was capable of slowly changing those rights and enacting laws without the consent of the people. In fact it was he, the founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, who first attempted to impeach a US Supreme Court justice, Justice Samuel Chase. It was unsuccessful. Samuel Chase, a Federalist, vigorously and aggressively worked to enforce the highly unconstitutional Sedition Act, but only against Democratic-Republicans. He seemed to make it his mission to shut them up; he left an Federalist offender alone. Jefferson didn’t believe a justice which such a flagrant discrimination against an opposing political party should sit on the bench and rule on national constitutional matters Here are some of the wise words Jefferson wrote over the years warning of the tendency of the federal courts to become too powerful and destructive of the Constitution written in Philadelphia in 1787, signed by the delegates, and ratified, one by one, by each State: 

       In his letter of September 11, 1804 to Abagail Adams, he wrote: “Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” 

      In his letter of August 18, 1821 to Charles Hammond, he wrote:The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.” 

      In his letter of October 23, 1823 to Monsieur A. Coray, he wrote: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in a way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, little by little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction before anyone has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”  

      In his letter of October 31, 1823 to Monsieur A. Coray, he wrote: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that the invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is no made to be trusted for life, if secured against all inability to account.” 

       Compare what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the federal judiciary to what Abraham Lincoln warned in his First Inaugural Address:  “…The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”  — from his First Inaugural Address (1861)

(3) For threatening to limit, prevent, require certification, and even tax American citizens in their ownership and enjoyment of firearms (and/or ammunition).  Members of Congress are currently (as they have done in the past) planning to pass legislation to require persons to be licensed in order to purchase ammunition. Congress intends to tax ammunition (probably at a high rate) and probably guns as well. Certain magazines and firearm types will be excluded from Second Amendment protection, at Congress’ discretion, of course. All of these are serious burdens on our right to gun ownership. Allowing Congress to interpret the Second Amendment on its own is perhaps the worst violation of our Second Amendment. Their stated goal is to destroy the NRA, an organization dedicated to keeping the Second Amendment alive and pertinent.  We should all be well-aware that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for self-protection and to ultimately, if necessary, stand up against a tyrannical government (foe the purposes of protecting our Natural and God-given rights. The US Supreme Court acknowledged such in the cases District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).  It was violations of such a right in England that caused the people to ultimately begin the movement to minimize the role of the monarch (which ended in 1688 with the ascension to the throne by William and Mary, with Parliament’s blessing) and it was King George’s orders to seize the colonists’ guns and ammunition that finally led to the first shots of our American Revolution. Such a violation can never be tolerated. We owe this to our children, our grandchildren, and future generations, but mostly we owe this to our Founders, our forefathers, and all those who fought for this right to bear arms. As Samuel Adams wrote: “Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. – Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.” 

(4) For US presidents attempting to add additional “rights” that Americans are entitled to without going through the proper and legal process of amending the US Constitution according to Article V. A perfect example is the effort by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add additional rights belonging to Americans, particularly minorities and those living at or below the poverty level. In his Inaugural Address on January 11, 1944,, Franklin D. Roosevelt explained that economic inequality is a precursor to Fascism and that the influence of Soviet Communism is something the United States should fear. Consequently, he urged in strong terms that a “Second Bill of Rights” be adopted as a hedge against communism spreading to our shores. In that speech, he said:

      “This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

      As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

     We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

     In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

     Among these are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

     All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

     Roosevelt did not argue that the Constitution should be amended to include the “Second Bill of Rights.” But he did believe that social and economic rights ought to be seen as a defining part of our political culture, closely akin to the Declaration of Independence — a place to look for our deepest commitments. I imagine he believed such “social and economic rights” fall under the provision in the Constitution known as the “General Welfare Clause.”

      Roosevelt died in office before the war ended. His successor, Harry S. Truman, tried to carry forward his economic and civil rights initiatives with the “Fair Deal,” but Congress blocked nearly all of his proposed legislation. Imagine how history (and the Second Bill of Rights) would have played out had Roosevelt lived and used his force of will to push his plan through Congress.  

      The fact is that FDR’s progressive vision has endured. Many progressives over the years have drawn directly from Roosevelt’s vision of freedom and security. Indeed, his Second Bill of Rights is striking for its political boldness, but its ideas and proposals may have had their clearest articulation three years earlier when he delivered his famous “Four Freedoms” speech. In it he says, “The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are: (1) Equality of opportunity for youth and for others;  (2)  Jobs for those who can work;  (3)  Security for those who need it;  (4)  The ending of special privilege for the few;  (5)  The preservation of civil liberties for all; and  (6)  The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

     The problems with FDR’s plan are many-fold:  First, such a proposal would by-pass the legal and legitimate process of adding additional human rights (which is outlined in Article V of the US Constitution). Second, a “Second Bill of Rights” (additional social and economic rights) would give Congress greater ability to legislate and control the country’s population. Third, it would greatly expand our entitlement culture; there would be a consequential expansion of entitlements, largely funded and managed by the federal government.  Fourth, it would give Congress the excuse to increase its reliance on THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE as a separate grant of power in Article I, Section 8.  Fifth, such promises and language by the country’s president would tend to confuse the American people as to which objects are legitimate “rights” and even legitimate “civil rights.” Most Americans already haven’t read the Constitution or Declaration of Independence and are ignorant of our country’s history.  And sixth, a Second Bill of Rights serves to relieve Americans from personal responsibility and to rely increasingly on the federal government.

(5) For accepting fraudulent election results, even though there was an abundance of compelling evidence that the election was intentionally rigged through massive election tampering, election fraud, and election irregularities,  thereby nullifying and ignoring the voice of too many decent, patriotic, law-abiding, and hard-working citizens, according to the Constitutional principle “One Person, One Vote.” (grounded in the 14th Amendment, if you believe it is even a legitimate amendment, but certainly grounded in our notion of equality and in our very right as an American citizen). Every citizen is guaranteed, by right and by the Constitution, to have an equal vote and thus an equal voice in the government that passes laws and enacts policies that affect our lives, property, and fortunes. While our Founders established our country as a republic (for very good reason), there is a very important democratic element, which is the ability of every citizen to vote and thereby have a voice in their government.  Mike Huckabee noted: “A fraudulent vote is a stolen vote. It steals a vote from the thin air and nullifies the legal and legitimate vote of a tax-paying citizen, whose rights to a fair election shouldn’t be tampered with. Winning an election is important, but winning it honestly is imperative in a Constitutional Republic.”

(6) For the US Supreme Court ignoring its obligation under Article III, Section 2, clauses 1 and 2 regarding “original jurisdiction.”  Article III, Section 2, clauses 1 and 2 read:  (1)  “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.  (2)  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”  Being that the Constitution provides this as the only forum for an identified party’s day in court, to deny a  hearing to one constitutionally assigned to the Court is akin to denying such party its right to justice.  Some recent examples include its refusal to hear the Pennsylvania and Texas cases challenging the certification of the state presidential election results. Even though the high Court held that the Pennsylvania case in particular was filed a bit late, the gravity of the allegations should have encouraged the members of the Court to find an excuse to hear it. After all, at hear is the People’s rightful expectation of honest and transparent election results. And to be honest, the sheer number of election tampering, election fraud, and election irregularities was mind-blowing and rightfully caused the people to lose faith in the election system and to believe the election was rigged.

(7) For members and officials of the federal government secretly scheming among themselves, along party lines, to disparage, to concoct lies about, to frustrate, to embarrass, to publicly humiliate, to bring charges of impeachment against (based on a fabricated scandal they planted), and to incite protests and violence against a good and exceptionally effective president (President Trump)….  a president that the American people overwhelmingly voted for and supported. They did all such scheming to taint his presidency at the very least but hoping to remove him from office. In effect, the Democrat Party, its members in government, its political elites and wealthy supporters, and even the progressive main-stream media attempted a coup d’etat. Government (nor a political party so entrenched in the government) should never have the ability to undo the decisions and wishes of the American people. Government belongs to the People… NOT a political party nor one particular political philosophy.

(8) For scheming and succeeding in passing a bill through Congress to establish the Fourteenth Amendment and then scheming (thru the Reconstruction Acts and pure ambition) to have to adopted legally by all the States and then added to the Constitution. There is ample evidence of the shenanigans used by representatives from the Northern and other non-Confederate states in the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass the bill and then to hastily pass the highly unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts (then President Andrew Johnson acknowledged the unconstitutionality and did not want to sign it into law) to deny the former Confederate States their seats in Congress until each of those states ratified and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. Note that at first, they were allowed their seats back in Congress (“they are our brothers”) and all was going fine; the nation was attempting to heal. The former Confederate States were on board with the northern and border States in working together to pass and adopt the Thirteenth Amendment (to abolish slavery) but they were not on board regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. When the former Confederate States refused to adopt that Amendment, its representatives were kicked out of Congress. Congress, exhibiting true and unadulterated ambition for their vision of “the new Union” (post-Civil War Union), passed the Reconstruction Acts, in part to deny them their seats, and their representation, in Congress and predicated on them adopting the Fourteenth Amendment. It was not only a blatant violation of the right to be represented in government (remember how the colonists’ cried “No taxation without representation!”), but also it was an outright exercise of coercion by one group of states over another group of states, both subject to the US Constitution and all its rights, assurances, and privileges, in order to alter that document. The Confederate States were good enough to help pass the Thirteenth Amendment but suddenly they were no longer good enough because they wouldn’t help pass the Fourteenth Amendment, and because of that, they were subject to extreme constitutional violations.

(9) For the Supreme Court abusing its power by articulating an unconstitutional doctrine known as the “Incorporation Doctrine,” using the arguably illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment.  The “Incorporation Doctrine” is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post-Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other Amendments, applying more rights to the states and people” over time by sapping the states of their historic sovereign powers and right to legislate according to the will of their own people. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to the state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment. (NOTE that the power of the federal judiciary to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an implied power derived in part from Clause 2 of Section 2). The Court took an extreme liberal view in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to come up with its Incorporation Doctrine.

(10) For wealth distribution (theft from those who produce to those who don’t or who are defined by government as not making enough money and therefore “living below the poverty line”) which violates the very words and promises laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The second paragraph of the Declaration reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..”  Everyone knows that the term “pursuit of happiness” was meant not only to mean “property,” but all the happiness and security and success that comes with its accumulation. Charlotte Cushman in her article “Founding Principle of the United States of America: Individual Rights” (July 2016) explained it well: “Re-distribution of wealth doesn’t protect rights.  The man who earns an honest living has his money taken against his will (theft) to be given to someone else.  His right to what he has worked for, that which supports his life, has been violated.”

(11) For deciding that healthcare is an object for which Congress can rightfully legislate, even though the Constitution grants it no such power and even though the Supreme Court could not rightfully find another power which could support the national healthcare act (Affordable Healthcare Act). Yet the statute is still in effect. According to Thomas Jefferson: “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”  Charlotte Cushman in her article “Founding Principle of the United States of America: Individual Rights” (July 2016) said this about socialized medicine, as it relates to freedom: “Socialized medicine doesn’t protect rights or life.  The doctors become slaves of the state that regulates how they should practice medicine and the patients no longer can choose the best treatments for the best prices.  Their right to use their own minds to decide what to do and to form contractual agreements with each other has been violated.”  Democrats and even a few Republicans pursued national healthcare and greater entitlement programs, as many suspected, to appeal to mostly Democratic constituents – to make them “more comfortable in their poverty.”

(12) For passing “Bail Out” legislation to rescue certain businesses the government deemed to be too important to fail.  By the way, the “bail out” legislation was one of the direct reasons the TEA Party movement was born. In her article “Founding Principle of the United States of America: Individual Rights” (July 2016), Charlotte Cushman wrote: “Bail-outs and subsidies don’t protect rights. The government decides who succeeds and who fails instead of citizens who trade with each other.  Taxpayers pay to support businesses by force through their tax dollars and become poorer because of it.  The right to freedom of association and property has been violated.”

(13) For espousing rhetoric over the many years causing too many Americans (mostly on the left) to have a corrupted concept of essential rights. Now people claim they have a “right” or are entitled to things like an education, medical care, food, housing and so on.  But if people have a “right” to something, it means that somebody has to provide it. And when someone has to provide something against his will for someone else, there is only one word to describe it – slavery. The government rightly abolished chattel slavery of humans with the Thirteenth Amendment (humans can’t own other humans, as if they were a piece of property), but it forces certain classes of Americans to be so-called slaves to “work for” and support other classes of Americans. Yet if man’s survival is the objective, freedom is imperative. Since man does not automatically know how to survive, he has to use his mind in order to figure out how to live. He requires freedom so that he can think and act in accordance with the conclusions of his mind.  Therefore, a moral country provides the conditions necessary for this to happen and there is only one political system that does this – the one designed and created by our founding generations.

(14) For engaging in criminal solicitation by encouraging militant groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter to harm Trump supporters and to wreak violence and property damage to bolster the Democratic Party and its plans for government power.

(15) For colluding with the main-stream (liberal) media to control the message that the American people receive on behalf of the government, the Democratic Party, political elites, and other political movers and shakers. The collusion effort is to make sure the American people hear only one view of what is going on –the leftist or progressive government view. Many have labeled the main-stream media as “the fourth branch of government” as it has been serving to be its mouthpiece and promoter. Conservative points of view are excluded from TV, radio, and the internet. Conservatives have even mocked, ridiculed, and called horrible names such as despicables, irredeemables, and domestic terrorists. I think we all have come to understand the power of the media to brainwash the average American under-educated citizen. Such derogatory treatment, led by members of government, have caused great personal harm to good and decent American citizens.

(16) For raising taxes in order to spend federal revenue on non-constitutional programs (including state grants). Excessive taxation and wealth re-distribution programs are nothing more than legal plunder.  Frederic Bastiat made it perfectly clear that it can never be consistent with a free society. “Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism.”  Gideon J. Tucker offered this astute observation: “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” (1866)  In his Inaugural Address (1801), Thomas Jefferson spoke these words: “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government.”  He also wrote: “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”  Of course we know that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which outlines the essential principles and foundations of liberty that formed the basis of our existence as a free nation.

(17) For using tax revenue to unconstitutionally control and coerce the once-sovereign States. By using “conditioned” grants to the states, the federal government has found “an end run around the Constitution,” both in word and in the spirit of federalism (the one-time most effective of “checks” on the power of the federal government; this was a unique and brilliant design feature of our American government system to keep the federal government limited and constrained within the confines of the Constitution. The use of public taxation as a means to control the States (which are always revenue-poor), along with the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional creation of the “incorporation doctrine” using the Fourteenth Amendment to strip them of their historic sovereign rights and powers, has done immeasurable harm to the power of the States and has diminished greatly their ability to stand on their own and offer the kind of resistance to an ambitious federal government (the final and the most effective of “checks and balances”) that our Founders designed and created with the US Constitution, and which each of the States relied on in ratifying it.

(18) For unconstitutionally growing and multiplying our Entitlement programs. Chriss Jami explains: “Man is not, by nature, deserving of all that he wants. When we think that we are automatically entitled to something, that is when we start walking all over others to get it.” In absolute truth, there is no power granted to the federal government that authorizes it to establish entitlement programs, welfare programs, or wealth-distribution policies. According to Charles Koch: “Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness.  This is what happens when elected officials believe that people’s lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.”  

(19) For engaging in criminal solicitation against American citizens whom they don’t respect (not their party).  For example, Rep. Maxine Waters engaged in criminal solicitation by calling on her followers to harass members of Trump’s cabinet and advisors, to get in their faces, to threaten them, and as she specifically said :Make them feel like they are not welcome.” In fact, liberals/Democrats/progressives took her message seriously and did just as she instructed them. They harassed Sarah Huckabee Sanders so thoroughly that she and her family were forced to leave a restaurant where they went to dine in privacy. Calling out certain American citizens and making them feel like “they do not belong” is reminiscent of the Nazi Party of Germany in 1933. The party solidified its power by identifying every type of political opponent as a threat and as an enemy of the state, and one by one, going after them and either ostracizing them, jailing them, or sending them to concentration camps. And let us not forget Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex who engaged in criminal solicitation by calling on members of the left to occupy airports and interfere with its orderly operation.

(20) For suppressing free speech primarily by colluding with the highly liberal main-stream media and by weaponizing various offices and agencies of the federal government against those who espouse views it deems unacceptable. A good example is the actions of government ever since Barack Obama was elected as president.  Another example is the mandate to Lois Lerner, head of the IRS, by President Obama, to use its powers to grant or deny tax-exempt status to organizations to deny such to any Tea Party or other patriot organization. Even though Obama publicly denied Ms. Lerner had any intent to do so, the evidence was overwhelming and an internal audit confirmed that there was a clear intent to target conservative groups.  As Dennis Prager wrote in his article “I Now Better Understand ‘The Good German” (Townhall, January 5, 2021): “Half of America, the non-left half, is afraid to speak their minds at virtually every university, movie studio and large corporation — indeed, at virtually every place of work. Professors who say anything that offends the left fear being ostracized if they have tenure and being fired if they do not. People are socially ostracized, publicly shamed and/or fired for differing with Black Lives Matter, as America-hating and white-hating a group as has ever existed. And few Americans speak up. On the contrary, when BLM protestors demand that diners outside of restaurants raise their fists to show their support of BLM, nearly every diner does.”  Dennis Prager further addresses this subject in his article “The Good American (Townhall, January 12, 2021):  “Now we are faced with a lockdown on speech the likes of which have never been seen in America. And the parallels with Germany are even more stark. The left-wing party (the Democrats) and the left-wing media (the “mainstream media”) are using the mob invasion of the Capitol exactly the way the Nazis used the Reichstag fire. On Feb. 27, 1933, exactly one month after the Nazis came to power, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze. The Nazis blamed the fire on their archenemy, the communists, and used the fire to essentially extinguish the Communist Party and its ability to publish, speak or otherwise spread its message. Using the Reichstag fire as an excuse, the Nazis passed the Enabling Act, a law that gave the Nazi chancellor, Adolf Hitler, the power to pass laws by decree — without the Reichstag.”

(21) For using the full force of the federal government’s Department of Homeland Security to politically disable and ostracize all traditional conservative groups and individuals, such as veterans, those who support the Second Amendment, those who embrace religion, those who espouse the values of the Founding Fathers, etc, by labeling them officially as “domestic terrorists’ (those most likely to radicalize and become violent).  See the Report directed by President Barack Obama and issued on April 7, 2009 by Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano – “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”  (https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf ).

(22) For engaging in retribution against American citizens (using the DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security, and the IRS, just to name a few) who are critical of the federal government and/or who hold different political views or a different political philosophy.

(23) For instituting an era of “fear of government” such that today’s “good (conservative) patriot” is afraid to do anything other than write articles, go on conservative talk radio, and otherwise protest and march on Washington DC in order to protect the republic that our Founders created and the individual States acceded to. They are seemingly afraid to do anything meaningfully to help their fellow citizens now living under oppressive dictatorships. They are afraid to do anything meaningful to undermine the government’s tyranny because they believe they have no other options other than their free speech (now in question) and their power at the ballot box (also now seriously undermined and in question). They believe to do so would bring the wrath of the federal government (thank you President Abraham Lincoln), which means the government has destroyed the spirit and the historic civic duty and responsibility of every American patriot.

(24) For pursing an extensive policy of lies to the American people and to the media (to spread out in order to monopolize the news) for purely political ambitions. First and foremost, the lies have been meant to tarnish the conservative groups in America (specifically to curtail or prevent conservatives’ ability to promote their views and ideas), and second, to further curtail civil liberties, thereby allowing government to further control the People.

(25) For treating Americans totally different, depending on the political party they associate with and vote, and in fact, at times showing absolute contempt for members of the American citizenry who don’t “tow the same party line.”  For example, Antifa and BLM are referred to as “freedom fighters” and have been exempt by the Democrat-controlled House members for criticism, investigation, or prosecution while peaceful, law-abiding conservative Patriots are called by these same Democratic House members “domestic terrorists.”  As another example, Joe Biden called all Trump supporters “Domestic Terrorists” for daring to protest and exercise their First Amendment rights of speech and expression, as well as the right to seek redress from their government. And furthermore, Alexandria Acasio-Cortez called all conservatives “lazy.”  Obviously, their hope is that these conservatives will be seen as dangerous, as traitors and as enemies of the state. Members of “the Peoples’ House” (Congress) should never ever show contempt for the people – all people – of the country that they are ultimately legislating for.

(26) For pushing issues and politics of fear so forcefully that we have watched as America has reluctantly accepted the rationally and morally indefensible physical and economic lockdown of the country. It is apathy in the face of tyranny.

(27) For creating and using unconstitutional offices and agencies to over-regulate and use aggressive tactics, forcing tens of millions of Americans to accept irrational, unconstitutional and unprecedented police state-type restrictions on their freedoms, including even the freedom to make a living.

(28) For weaponizing the government and its agencies for criminal and political ambition purposes.  (Examples:  IRS (to prevent TEA Party groups from raising money to meaningfully influence the 2012 presidential election; that is, to support Obama’s opponent Mitt Romney as well as to invest in political adds against Obama),

(29) For pursuing and investing in the knowingly-fabricated Steele dossier which the DOJ paid for in order to initiate an investigation of Trump for the express purpose of taking focus off Hillary and her personal email server scandal,

(30) For going to the secret FISA courts and obtaining FISA warrants, using the knowingly-fabricated Steele dossier and making intentional and critical omissions, for the direct purpose of not only spying illegally on an American citizen but a presidential candidate as well (Donald Trump).

(31) For planting evidence (coerced false testimony) against an honest, decent, and highly competent Supreme Court nominee (Brett Kavanaugh).

(32) For hate-filled liberal/progressive/Democratic members in Congress not only creating a false premise to bring charges of impeachment against President Donald Trump for the sole purpose of trying to get him out of office and undoing the will of the people, but conducting planning and strategy meetings in secret and denying access to any Republican representative. It was a clear case of denying Trump his due process right.

(33) For making a “gender” issue against the immutable laws of nature (biology) for transgenders and others who make it their own choice of which gender to identify with (regardless of biological gender – solidified by DNA) for the purposes of federal discrimination laws, even though the core curriculum in our children’s education is to study the laws of nature and especially to study life in Biology

(34) For showing hostility to religion. Only by characterizing religious tenets as discriminatory can the government expanding and progress their progressive agenda.

(35) For showing hostility to those who embrace the Second Amendment (“those who cling to their guns and their religion”)

(36) For refusing to investigate a presidential election, and other federal elections as well, when there has clearly been election tampering, election irregularities, election defrauding schemes, and voter fraud,, especially by an overly ambitious and unscrupulous political party or candidate (involving collusion). The government has shown no interest or concern that it is a government “for the people” and is guided not only by a framework laid out in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence, but by common sense and decency as well, and therefore has denied the people their rightful expectation that elections are fair, honest, a product of “one person, one vote” (popular referendum), and transparent. The government has allowed the American people to lose faith in their federal election system and in some cases, has denied them the candidate they rightfully chose.

(37) For making secret deals with foreign adversaries (Russia, Iran), for covering up a terrorist attack and assassination of American Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other American government personnel (Benghazi)

(38) For proving to the American people that there is a “two-track” justice system by refusing to indict and/or otherwise investigate and punish those in government (like James Comey) other political elites (like Hillary) while aggressively going after American citizens who break federal law (dual set of standards)

(39) For putting the interests of illegal aliens before the well-being of law-abiding and documented American citizens. Even the thought of such misplaced interest and allegiance should shock the conscience of every American citizen.

(40) For allowing illegal and harmful drugs and other potentially deadly controlled substances to cross our borders to flood our streets and kill our children and/or lure them into gangs or addiction. Also, even though there is plenty of resources to patrol the borders and even to build a protective wall, the government has ignored such responsibility to allow uncontrolled illegal entry by aliens, including potential terrorists, into our country. It has allowed the unsecured borders to be a source of increasing human trafficking as well. Border control and patrol is a task delegated to the federal government by the Constitution for the primary purposes of national safety and security and for controlling who enters the country. It has the authority over immigration and naturalization.  

(41) For denying the States their inherent and natural sovereign right of secession. Abraham Lincoln ambitiously and masterfully re-interpreted the Constitution to mean that the States had meant the Constitution to create a perpetual union (unbreakable and forcing the States to give up their right to ever secede. Nothing was farther from the truth).  Secession is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. That is because it is a sovereign – a natural – right belonging to every state. It is inalienable which means that no state can ever be permanently denied of that right. It is tied with the natural right of self-determination and self-preservation. If it is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it is a right superseding the document. The right to life is not mentioned per se in the Constitution, and yet we know that it is a right that supersedes it. Anything not mentioned in the Constitution is not subject to federal legislation or to federal policy. Such action is outwardly abusive, unconstitutional, and subject to non-enforcement (nullification by the States or the People).   

(42) For passing legislation or acting unilaterally (as President Lincoln did) to target those who dared to speak or write anything negative about the government especially during wartime or times of tense national or international events, to harass them, imprison them, seize their newspapers, pamphlets, and other publication materials, deny them the services of the US mail, confiscate their property, and even destroy their livelihood.  Think back to the Sedition Act of 1796 which President John Adams, a Federalist, pushed through Congress and had enforced (especially aggressively to the opponent party, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party), and think about all the jailing and confiscations of writers, journalists, editors and publishers by President Lincoln during the Civil War.   

(43) For extreme harassment of a fine American patriot and dedicated public servant. Donald Trump is a great example and the most current example.  Certain liberal members of Congress (mostly Democrats) are filled with such all-consuming hatred to him that they are pursuing an impeachment trial even though he is no longer occupying the White House as president. They are pursuing an impeachment trial of a past president, thus calling a private citizen to face inquisition by the federal government. The process of Impeachment, as laid out in the Constitution (Article II, Section 4, is that Articles of Impeachment must first be adopted by the members of the House of Representatives (by a simple majority) and then those Articles MUST be presented to the Senate – WHILE THE PRESIDENT IS STILL IN OFFICE. Furthermore, there is a REASON for an impeachment attempt… It is to ultimately remove the president from office on account of conduct that meets the criteria of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  The purpose of the Senate trial is to determine if the allegations (articles of impeachment) are serious enough to warrant removing him from office. It takes a two-thirds of senators present for the proceedings to have a president removed. Newsflash: Donald Trump is no longer president.  Where is the need to remove him from office?  Legal experts and even most Republican senators have said that it would be unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial of a president who has left office, arguing that the Senate lacks jurisdiction to try him because he us now a private citizen .I suppose the only real reason for such blatant and hate-filled harassment of Mr. Trump is that they want to make sure to prevent him from running for president in 2024.  Doesn’t sound like the American thing to do, right?  Doesn’t sound like anything that our Founding Fathers would have or could have considered.  

      Apparently, the Democrat-controlled US House voted last week to impeach then-President Trump, alleging he incited a mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6, which left five people dead. It is amazing to many that those obsessed members of Congress seemed to have ignored that it was its true domestic terrorist group, Antifa, which was responsible for the violence. Yet in the end, it has been reported that the single Article of Impeachment had support from all House Democrats and 10 Republicans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said she would send the Article of Impeachment against former President Trump to the Senate on Monday (January 25, 2021), triggering a second impeachment trial. Not only does the action exhibit extreme ignorance (of the Constitution) on the part of congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), but it solidifies the notion that Democrats are, and have been for four years, absolutely motivated by hate and fear of Donald Trump in all that they have schemed, done, and taken action to destroy him and his good name. The Russian Collusion scandal, the appointing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the 2016 election, the first impeachment attempt, the claims about his business ventures, the attacks on his cabinet members (Rep. Maxine Waters), the personal attacks on his family members, the constant claims that he was violating the Constitution, the constant claims that he is racist, xenophobic, etc, and the constant mocking….  These are all evidence of their hatred and fear.

      Nothing exemplifies tyranny more than using deep-seated hatred of a president to go after him even after he has left office, and again to manufacture a basis to do so.  It’s one thing to target those private American citizens who present political problems for them (like they did to the Democratic-Republicans, then to the Tea Party, and now to conservative individuals and groups), but to aggressively harass and target an ex-president is unconscionable and the very definition of tyranny. A great majority of the country love, appreciate, and have supported President Trump and these mal-intentioned members of Congress should be ashamed of themselves for the abject disrespect for their choice of leader.

(44)  For creating unconstitutional departments and agencies. A few glaring examples are the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Energy, among others. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to legislate in the area of education, the environment, agriculture, or energy.  So many times, we see that federal judges find many federal, state, and local laws to be unconstitutional on the slimiest interpretation of the Constitution. These same judges, using the same judicial scrutiny, should find that many federal departments and agencies are unconstitutional and therefore must be abolished.  As mentioned earlier, every time the federal government assumes a power not delegated to it in the Constitution, it takes it away from the rightful holder of that power – either the States or the People themselves. NOTE that any or all of these departments and agencies could become constitutional and part of the federal government, but only after following the legal pathway outlined in Article V, whereby each state holds a constitutional convention and ratifies the proposal by three fourths of the state legislatures.  [See Addendum II for a much greater list (albeit not a complete one) of unconstitutional federal agencies].


While the abuses of power and acts of out-right tyranny above are outrageous enough and certainly enough to warrant abolishing the current federal government, there have been abuses and violations of the Bill of Rights, a listing of human rights and re-declarations of our government philosophy and system for which the federal government was primarily tasked with protecting. In other words, the Bill of Rights was a “hands off” notice to the federal government. 

The following summary is taken directly from the article “The Bill of Rights Violated,” written by Joel Killion, in 2014:

The Constitution of the United States, which includes the Bill of Rights, is one of the most abused documents in American history. It was designed to provide a solid foundation for liberty by limiting the size and scope of the federal government in a way that has never been seen in the history of mankind, but it is the Bill of Rights which makes it especially unique. Contrary to what many may think, the Bill of Rights “is not a declaration of rights at all. It is a declaration of prohibitions against the federal government,” setting clear boundaries that were not to be crossed (Skousen 674). However, as you will see, these delineations have been sullied. The following essay presents each amendment in the Bill of Rights, provides a summary of each amendment, and shows how they have been violated by the federal government.


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

The first part of the First Amendment deals with freedom of religion, which in many cases forms the basis for and guides one’s conscience and actions. It contains the “Establishment” clause and the “Free Exercise” clause. Essentially what this provision states is that the government can never establish a state-sponsored religion (usually to the discrimination of others, like England had), it can not show favoritism toward one religion over another or even prefer religion over non-religion (a person can be religious, an atheist or an agnostic and all are equal in the eyes of the government), and it cannot show cannot prohibit anyone or any group of people from freely practicing their faith.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

“In the case of Gitlow v. New York [1925], the Supreme Court used certain provisions in the federal Bill of Rights and applied them to the states. The court justified this action on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ The opponents of traditional theistic religion and morality saw the Gitlow case as an opportunity to invoke the power of the federal courts to build a wall between each of the states and any form of religious encouragement, even though it was provided indirectly. In other words they would reverse the Founders’ original policy” (Skousen 685). The first provision of the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from interfering in religious matters, leaving this jurisdiction to the states; yet, in the case, the Supreme Court violated this prohibition.

“The case of Cantwell v. Connecticut [1940] was the first ruling of the Supreme Court in which the “Gitlow doctrine” was applied to religious liberty…” (Skousen 685), followed by McCollum v. Board of Education [1948] where the Supreme Court “…used the Gitlow doctrine to tell a state board of education that it would not allow children, even with their parents’ consent, to take religion classes in school” (Skousen 686).

“…Everson v. Board of Education [1947] was the first time the Supreme Court applied the ‘due process’ clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to make the federal wall of separation apply to religious matters among the individual states. What this amounted to was the actual breaking down of the federal wall set up by the First Amendment so that the Supreme Court actually usurped jurisdiction over religious matters in the states and began dictating what the states could or could not do with reference to religious questions” (Skousen 685). Moreover, in this case, “…the Supreme Court made it clear that neither the federal government nor the state government could encourage religion in any way. Justice Hugo L. Black spoke for the court and declared in his opinion, ‘Neither a State nor the Federal government…can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. The Founders would have heartily endorsed Justice Black’s ‘no preference’ doctrine, but they would, no doubt, have objected vigorously to outlawing indirect aid for, and encouragement to, ‘all religions’…it was ‘all religions’ the Founders had said they were relying upon to undergird society with those moral teachings which are ‘necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind. No doubt they would have further objected to the court’s presumptive usurpation in taking jurisdiction over a religious question, which had been specifically reserved, by the First and Tenth Amendments, to the states themselves” (Skousen 686). “Without a doubt, there has been a severe wrenching of the Constitution from its original First Amendment moorings ever since this new trend began,” starting with the Gitlow case (Skousen 685).

In Zorach v. Clauson [1952], “…the Supreme Court took its newly acquired jurisdiction over religious questions in state schools to announce…that it was very solicitous of religion and would approve classes in religion during the regular school day, providing the classes were held separate from any tax-supported property” (Skousen 686).

In Engel v. Vitale [1962], the Supreme Court overruled the New York Court of Appeals’ approval of a prepared, nondenominational prayer for use in the public schools, thereby intermeddling in a religious state question (Skousen 687).

In Abington School District v. Schemp [1963], the Supreme Court intruded upon the religious liberty of a high school which had opening ceremonies that included reciting the Lord’s Prayer and reading Bible verses, declaring such conduct as unconstitutional. “It was pointed out to the court that ‘unless these religious exercises are permitted, a “religion of secularism” is established in the schools,’ but the Court rejected this argument” (Skousen 687).

Summary of “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”: The federal government cannot limit the freedom of speech.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

Catherine Engelbrecht, who is the chairwoman of the election integrity group True the Vote and is the founder and leader of King Street Patriots (a Tea Party group) and is the president of Engelbrecht Manufacturing, became a target of the federal government. As Mrs. Engelbrecht testified on February 6, 2014, before the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, “Shortly after filing IRS forms to establish 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations, an assortment of federal entities – including law enforcement agencies and a Congressman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings – came knocking at my door. In nearly two decades of running our small business, my husband and I never dealt with any government agency, outside of filing our annual tax returns. We had never been audited, we had never been investigated, but all that changed upon submitting applications for the non-profit statuses of True the Vote and King Street Patriots. Since that filing in 2010, my private businesses, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies [i.e. IRS, OSHA, ATF, FBI]… All of these incursions into my affairs began after filing applications for tax-exemption. There is no other remarkable event, no other reason, to explain away how for decades I went unnoticed, but now find myself on the receiving end of interagency coordination into and against all facets of my life, both public and private… these events were occurring while the IRS was subjecting me to multiple rounds of abusive inquiries, with requests to provide every Facebook and Twitter entry I’d every posted, questions about my political aspirations, and demands to know the names of every group I’d ever made presentations to, the content of what I’d said, and where I intended to speak for the coming year. The answers to these sorts of questions are not of interest to the typical IRS analyst, but they are of great interest to a political machine that puts its own survival above the civil liberties of any private citizen” (“Testimony” 2-4). This kind of testimony has been shared before Congress by Becky Gerritson (President of Wetumpka Tea Party in Alabama), Karen Kenney (Leader of the San Fernando Valley Patriots), Kevin Kookegey (President and Founder of Linchpins of Liberty), Susan Martinek (President of the Coalition for Life of Iowa), and many others, and has resulted in what has become known as the IRS Scandal (Pavlich).

On February 17, 2014, it was reported that “IRS Regulation-134417-13, ‘Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities,’ is a proposed new regulation that is an outrageously brazen attempt by the IRS to silence the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations before the upcoming election. If implemented, the regulation would prohibit a 501(c)(4) from speaking to matters of public concern during the 2014 election cycle” (Staver).

Summary of “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press…”: The federal government cannot limit the freedom of the press.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

On May 13, 2013, the Associated Press announced that the telephone records for 20 of their reporters had been subpoenaed by the Justice Department for a two-month period in 2012; the subpoenas were not issued to the AP but to the AP’s telephone providers and Verizon Wireless (Ingram).

On May 19, 2013, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Justice Department seized the email and telephone records of Fox News reporters, including chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, and obtained a search warrant for the content of Rosen’s private and work emails and telephone records (as well as his parent’s phone records) in connection with Stephen Kim, a former State Department contractor who was charged with disclosing classified information about North Korea to Rosen (Marimow & Howerton). The warrants were obtained on the accusation that Rosen was a possible “criminal co-conspirator” with Kim.

Thomas Drake, who worked as a senior technical director with the NSA for 32 years but is now a prominent NSA whistleblower, recently “…warned that journalists are being increasingly frozen out of government sources.” He went on to say, “In our post-9/11 world, the government is increasingly in the ‘First Un-amendment’ business, engaged in a direct assault on free speech and the very foundation of our democracy.” He also said, “How…will the press report the real news when their sources dry up and the government becomes a primary purveyor of its own news?” (Lyngass)

Summary of “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”: The federal government cannot keep the American people from peaceful assembly.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

On October 1, 2013, National Park Service employees erected a barricade around the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., prohibiting World War II veterans from gathering there; according to the National Park Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior, access to the memorial was blocked due to the federal government shutdown (Spakovsky).

In the Spring and Summer of 1932, Washington D.C. was flooded by over 20,000 unemployed World War I veterans from all over America who needed the federal government to pay them for their service based on the bonus certificates they had been given after the war, which promised a cash bonus sometime in the future; they needed the money and would not leave until they received it. When the Senate rejected their demands, President Hoover was left to deal with the marchers, who eventually started camping out with their families in central Washington, refusing to move until they were paid. The camping site, made up of huts and tents, became known as Bonus City. In response, Hoover ordered General Douglas MacArthur (including Major George S. Patton and Major Dwight Eisenhower) to clear out Bonus City, using “cavalry, infantry, tank troops and a mounted machine gun squadron” to complete their mission. The Veterans and their families were dispersed with bayonets and tear gas. Hoover’s overreaction and overreach of power became known as the greatest tragedies in American history. (“The Bonus March…” and “The Bonus Army March”)

Summary of “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”: The federal government cannot prevent the American people from complaining to the government regarding their grievances.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

In 2013, after the petition entitled “Immediate Action Requested for Romeikes — Grant Permanent Legal Status to Persecuted German Homeschool Family” garnered well over 100,000 signatures in the time-span required to receive an official response from the administration, the White House essentially provided an elongated “no comment” (Hallowell).

“President Van Buren’s administration was marked by a struggle to prevent the receipt and consideration by Congress of numerous petitions for the abolition of slavery. Senator John S. Calhoun even declared such petitions to be ‘a violation of the Constitution’” (Skousen 689 and “Martin…”).


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.”

Summary: Since freedom cannot be maintained unless the American people remain armed, the federal government cannot prevent the people from keeping and using guns.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

In 2009, under the leadership of President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, “…the United States joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N.  Arms Trade Treaty [ATT] Resolution” (“No Compromise…”).

On July 22, 2011, the National Rifle Association (NRA) announced that it had secured a partnership with 58 members of the U.S. Senate – acquiring a bipartisan majority in the Senate – to oppose the ATT; all 58 Senators signed strongly-worded letters addressed to the White House, cautioning the President and the Secretary of State to keep their oath in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States (“U.S. Senate Stands with NRA…”). Then, on July 27, 2012, the NRA reported that 130 members of the U.S. House of Representatives joined the Senate in opposing the ATT after being urged by NRA members all over America to oppose the treaty; it also stated that the U.N. tried to draft another version of the ATT, hoping to salvage the failure of their prior attempt, but was unable to produce a draft that met the United States’ Constitutional standards (“NRA Stops…”). Finally, Secretary of State John Kerry, on September 25, 2013, in defiance of the American people, signed the ATT; however, the treaty cannot be ratified in the United States without a majority vote in the Senate (Nichols).

On July 21, 2014, Senator John McCain “…went on record Sunday saying “stand your ground” laws need review…because it’s very controversial legislation” (Morgenstern).

On July 29, 2014, the Associated Press reported that “A federal judge has rejected a push by gun rights advocates to let Illinois residents immediately tote firearms in public instead of waiting months for the state to outline the permitting process under its new concealed carry law” (Seidl).

On January 3, 2014, the Obama Administration announced pending executive action on who can buy a gun, “…focused mainly on mental health issues that would allow the government to get around certain privacy laws on the books in order to obtain more information” (Lucas).

On January 28, during the 2014 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama promised to increase gun control when he said, “…I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook” (Obama).


No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Summary: Soldiers cannot force a home-owner to harbor them in their homes, in wartime or peacetime, without the owner’s consent.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

“In 1942…inhabitants of the Aleutian Islands were forced out of their homes, and in some cases troops were actually quartered there…” (Reynolds).

“…In a 1982 case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, prison guards evicted from their quarters and replaced with National Guard troops during a strike sued, and the Court of Appeals found that this action implicated their rights under the Third Amendment, which it characterized as ‘designed to assure a fundamental right of privacy’” (Reynolds).

On July 10, 2011, “a Henderson, Nev., family…claimed that their Third Amendment rights were violated…when police officers commandeered their homes and arrested two family members for ‘obstruction’”; according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this action by the police, who employed military weapons and tactics, violated “…the spirit of the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution…” (Adams).


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Summary: This amendment “…guarantees the American people the right to the privacy of their homes, their businesses, and all their private papers and effects…the right of the people to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures…[and] the right to be free from arrest except on the basis of a warrant which has been properly issued” (Skousen 701-703).

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

The Sixteenth Amendment is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. According to T. Coleman Andrews, former Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, “Congress [in implementing the Sixteenth Amendment]…repealed Article IV of the Bill of Rights, by empowering the tax collector to do the very things from which that Article says we were to be secure. It opened up our homes, our papers and our effects to the prying eyes of government agents and set the stage for searches of our books and vaults and for inquiries into our private affairs whenever the tax men might decide, even though there might not be any justification beyond mere cynical suspicion. The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned…under the Sixteenth Amendment Congress can take 100 percent of our income anytime it wants to…The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by ‘steeply graduated’ taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die. As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training they will have to give most of it to the tax collector. People cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well” (Skousen 742). Moreover, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Sixteenth Amendment “…is a terrifying presumption. It presumes that we don’t really own our property. It accepts the Marxist notion that the state owns all the property and the state permits us to keep and use whatever it needs us to have so we won’t riot in the streets. And then it steals and uses whatever it can politically get away with” (“Taxation…”).

In 2013, Americans were informed that the National Security Agency (NSA) hacked into the enormous computer servers of Google and Yahoo and engaged in massive telephone and internet surveillance, accessing an unlimited amount of consumer data and metadata (Associated Press). What is even more concerning is that the NSA has been “secretly” spying on American citizens for the past 60 years and now has a $1.9 billion Utah Data Center that collects a “staggering” amount of data on Americans (including elected and non-elected government officials) and non-Americans alike (Klimas).

On May 16, 2013, it was reported that IRS was being taken to court for stealing more than 60 million medical records of more than 10 million Americans (“IRS Accused…”).

In December 2012, President Obama signed “…an extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a George W. Bush-era legislation that has allowed the government expansive spy powers that has been considered by some to be dragnet surveillance… FISA, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was first signed into law in the 1970s in order to put into place rules regarding domestic spying within the United States. Upon the passing of the FAA in 2008, however, the online and over-the-phone activities of Americans became subject to sweeping, warrantless wiretapping…” (RT).


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Summary: This amendment grants Americans the “…right to trial by Grand Jury for certain crimes, the right not to be tried or punished more than once for the same crime, the right to be tried only with due process of law and the right to be paid fair compensation for any property taken by the government for public use” (“The 5th…”).

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

On September 27, 2012, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an American citizen and Coptic filmmaker, was arrested in the middle of the night from his home in the Los Angeles area for eight probation violations (Turner). At the same time, he was being demonized for creating an allegedly anti-Muslim YouTube movie entitled “Innocence of Muslims” that was “…initially and incorrectly blamed for inciting the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed the American Ambassador [J. Christopher Stevens] and three other Americans [Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone S. Woods]…” (Turner). On November 7, during his hearing, Nakoula “…admitted to lying to his probation officer and three allegations of using false identities…” (Turner). It is suspicious that Nakoula was charged in November 2012 with the 2010 violations and slapped with a two-year imprisonment recommendation by his probation officers after being disclosed as someone involved in making the film; what is more, his probation process after his highly-publicized arrest and perp walk and the judge’s ruling were extremely peculiar, providing strong evidence that his case was processed to appease those who opposed his alleged anti-Muslim speech (Turner). Nakoula was repeatedly and publicly charged by the White House and the media “without due process of law” for the death of four Americans and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised to bring him, not the Islamic terrorists who actually killed them, to justice (Turner). But, in the aftermath, it is now common knowledge that the film had nothing to do with the terrorist attack (Darcy).

“…In 1923 a minimum wage law which required an employer to pay a certain wage, regardless of the earning ability of the employee, was held to be unconstitutional under this [Fifth Amendment] provision, since it took private property for the public welfare in violation of this clause [known as the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment]. It was reversed in 1937 by the Supreme Court under the influence of New Deal policies” (Skousen 707); the Supreme Court decision was made on March 29, 1937 in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish (Grossman).

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which was part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, was signed into law on October 24, 1938, setting minimum wages for most categories of workers (Grossman).

On June 23, 2005, “…the Supreme Court ruled that the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permitted the City of New London to exercise its eminent domain power in taking property from homeowners and transferring it to another private owner as part of an economic development plan” (“Kelo V. City…”). In their dissenting vote on this case, Justice O’Connor, along with the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, stated that “the Court has ‘effectively…delete[d] the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment’ and thereby ‘refuse[d] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution’” (“Sens. Rand Paul…”).


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Summary: Americans have a right to a speedy trial, to a public trial, to be judged by an impartial jury, to be notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime, to confront witnesses who will testify against them, to find witnesses who will testify in their favor, and to have a lawyer.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

“Pfc. Bradley Manning made headlines in 2010 when he was arrested for the leak of around 250,000 private documents concerning operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to the website WikiLeaks, known for its mission of transparency in government. Manning was arrested on May 26, 2010,” and was held in pretrial confinement for 845 days, thereby violating Manning’s right to a “speedy trial” (Bell).

“In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world [including American citizens], far from any battlefield” (“NDAA”) “The controversial components of the bill can be broken down into two parts. The first questionable portion of the bill (section 1031) explicitly exempts U.S. citizens, and…states that the government would be mandated to place into military custody: ‘any suspected member of Al Qaeda or one of its allies connected to a plot against the United States or its allies.. [and] would otherwise extend to arrests on United States soil. The executive branch could issue a waiver and keep such a prisoner in the civilian system.’ The second provision (section 1032), however, does not include an exemption for U.S. citizens, and would give the government “the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial” (Sexton).


In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Summary: Americans, in a civil case, possess “…the right to have a jury just as in criminal cases (provided, of course, that the suit involves a sum of $20 of more)” and “…the right to have its facts ‘as found’ remain unmolested during the appeal process” (Skousen 710)

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

In Tull v. United States, “…The United States (P) filed a civil suit against Tull (D) for discharging fill material into wetlands in violation of the Clean Water Act. P sought over $22 million and injunctive relief. The district court denied Tull’s motion for a jury trial and entered judgment for P for $325,000. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of a jury trial and the Supreme Court granted cert” (“Tull V…”).

“Many modern courts use a legal theory known as the “complexity exception,” whereby a judge may take a civil lawsuit out of the hands of a jury because the issues are supposedly too complicated for the jurors to understand. This is most common in patent disputes, which often involve complex scientific principles. But this is in direct contravention of the Seventh Amendment. What gives the government the authority to determine that something is too complicated for a jury to understand?” (“Amendment VII…”)


Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Summary: This amendment protects Americans from excessive bail and fines and from cruel and unusual punishment.

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

In 1910, in the case of Weems v. United States, the court overturned the conviction against Paul Weems, a U.S. officer, who was found guilty of falsifying a document and was cruelly and unusually punished with “a 15-year prison term, hard labor, lifetime surveillance, and loss of his civil rights” (“A Progressive…”).

In 1992, in Hudson v. McMillian, the U.S Supreme Court “…found a violation of the Eighth Amendment when prison officials punched and kicked a prisoner, leaving him with minor bruises, swelling of his face and mouth, and loose teeth. The Court held that a guard’s use of force violates the Eighth Amendment when it is not applied “in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline” but instead is used to “maliciously and sadistically cause harm” (“Your Right…”).


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Summary: This amendment says that “…any right not enumerated, or listed, in the Constitution is still retained by the people” (“9th…”).

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

“Who determines which unlisted rights are to be protected by the government? According to the 10th Amendment and Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, this power is reserved to the States, not to the Courts. There is nowhere in the Constitution that says the Courts have the power to determine which rights not listed are to be protected. The Constitution does say that powers not given to the federal government are given to the States and since the power to determine which unlisted rights are to be protected is nowhere delegated to the Federal government, this right is therefore given to the States (“9th…”). In 1973, in the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, the Supreme Court made all state laws banning abortions illegal. “The people of Texas had passed a law banning abortions. They believed that having an abortion should not be a protected right. The Supreme Court said otherwise, ignoring the 9th Amendment, and declared the law unconstitutional. So, a handful of judges defiantly overruled the vote of the people of Texas, and other states that also had anti-abortion rules” (“9th…”).

In the Declaration of Independence, it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…” (“The Declaration…”). Life is a God-given, unalienable right that springs from our humanity. Therefore, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade, it denied and disparaged the fundamental right of the unborn to live their lives.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Summary: This Amendment states that “…the federal government only has powers over the things that are specifically given to it in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States” or to the people (“The 10th…”).

Examples of how the Founders’ original intention of this provision has been violated by the federal government:

“The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act” (Hansen).

“In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce” (Napolitano).

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 is, at its core, unconstitutional. As a strategy, Congress used “The Commerce Clause” (Article I Section 8 Clause 3) of the Constitution to justify the regulation of the entire health care industry through this law – The Commerce Clause says that “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” According to the Framers, to regulate something meant to keep it “regular,” and, in the case of PPACA, this clause limits Congress to the regulation of interstate commerce between states (not to be confused with intrastate commerce, which is within state lines). With this in mind, consider the following: “The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one’s health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century” (Napolitano).

“In…Printz vs. United States, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress could not force the States to conduct criminal background checks on gun purchasers. This would have forced the state to use its own resources to accomplish the Federal mandate. This was also barred by the 10th Amendment” (“The 10th…”).

In conclusion, according to the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the Framers provided us with these ten amendments in order to insure public confidence in the government. Yet, as you have seen, all three branches of our national government have failed, on numerous occasions – certainly more numerous than the examples used above – to trample upon the rights of “We the People,” which the Declaration of Independence says are unalienable and God-endowed. Good government possesses only the power derived from the consent of the governed so that it can fulfill its purpose in securing the rights and liberties of the people. But, more and more have seen and are seeing good government replaced by that which is oppressive and tyrannical. Why? Because “We the People” have allowed it. We have failed to be students of history and of current events and have relinquished our sovereign control of these United States by casting unwise votes for greedy and corrupt politicians who do not regard our Constitution or our freedoms. However, if we will pray, become extreme in our defense of liberty, work hard to educate our neighbors, and vote for adamant constitutionalists, America will be restored.

Again, we MUST keep in mind the warning given to us by Thomas Jefferson: “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” 

Thomas Eddlem wrote an article, “A Legacy of Violations of the U.S. Bill of Rights, Hyperlinked,” in February 2014 and also listed various violations of the Bill of Rights, with resources provided:

Violations of Amendment I

(a)  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

1838: Missouri Mormon Extermination Order —  https://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/archives/resources/findingaids/miscMormRecs/eo/18381027_ExtermOrder.pdf

1844: Philadelphia Bible Riots —  https://exhibits.library.villanova.edu/chaos-in-the-streets-the-philadelphia-riots-of-1844

2006: Massachusetts Catholics Charities and Adoption —  https://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906

2011: Spying on Muslims —  https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206987.html

2013: ObamaCare birth control mandate —  https://www.catholicleague.org/obamacare-vs-catholic-church-2/

(b)  “or abridging the freedom of speech,”

1863: Clement Vallandigham —  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/68/243.html

1918: Eugene Debs —  https://www.oyez.org/cases/1918/714

2013: Yakima, Washington —  https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news//2020319712_apwapolicefreespeech1stldwritethru.html?mbaseid=2020319712

(c)  “or of the press;”

1861-65: Lincoln censorship —  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/02/thomas-dilorenzo/the-lincolnian-graveyard/

1798: Sedition Act —  https://constitution.org/   (then use “SEARCH” for “Sedition Act”)

1798: Cooper/Callender/Lyon prosecutions —  https://www.fjc.gov/history/docs/seditionacts.pdf

1918: Sedition Act —  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/wilson/filmmore/fm_act.html/

(page is currently undergoing a make-over, but instructions are given at this link)

1919: Charles Schenck —  resource was not provided

2013: Surveillance of journalists —  https://insider.foxnews.com/2013/05/22/new-info-doj-monitored-30-phone-lines-including-james-rosens-parents

(d)  “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”

1866: Civil Rights marchers New Orleans —  https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/new-orleans-massacre-1866/

1950s-60s: CoIntelpro —  https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro

1965: Civil rights marchers Selma —  https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/march-7-1965-civil-rights-marchers-attacked-in-selma/

2004: Free speech zones —  http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeech/

2011: Disbursement of Occupy Protesters —  https://www.syracuse.com/news/2011/12/occupy_protesters_sue_over_fre.html

(e)  “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

1836-44: Slavery gag rule —  https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page10_text.html

1907: Tilman Act —  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907

2002: McCain-Feingold law —  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

Violations of Amendment II

1934: National Firearms Act —  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/history-of-gun-control-legislation/2012/12/22/80c8d624-4ad3-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html

1968: Gun Control Act —  http://www.keepandbeararms.com/laws/gca68.htm

1993: Brady Act —  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025enr.pdf

2005: Gun confiscation Hurricane Katrina —  the video resourced is no longer available

2014: Background checks —  https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/nics

2014: Federal gun laws —  https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/other-laws-policies/key-federal-regulation-acts/

2014: California laws —  there was no resource provided

2014: Connecticut laws —  https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/connecticut.aspx

Violations of Amendment III

1812-14: War of 1812 —  http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/97-2/Dugan.PDF

1861-65: Civil War —  https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1624&context=wmborj

1941-45: Aleutian Islands during WWII —  https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1624&context=wmborj

1979: Engblom v. Carey —  https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1624&context=wmborj

2013: Henderson, Nevada – article cited is no longer available

Violations of Amendment IV

1919-20: Palmer Raids —  http://debs.indstate.edu/n277t6_1920.pdf

1861-65: Lincoln wiretapping —  https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/opinion/lincolns-surveillance-state.html?_r=0

1950s-60s: CoIntelpro —  https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro

1950s-60s: MK-Ultra —  article cited is no longer available

1970s: NSA —  http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=4834

2004-Present: FBI National Security Letters —  https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/aclu-analysis-and-recommendations-justice-department-oig-report-misuse-national?redirect=national-security/aclu-analysis-and-recommendations-justice-department-oig-report-misuse-national-se

2014: NSA —  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files

Violations of Amendment V

(a)  “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;”

2002-05: Jose Padilla —  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1027.ZS.html

2004: Yaser el-Hamdi —  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/542/507.html

(b)  “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;”

2000-present: Stalking cases —  https://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/stalking-case-summaries/double-jeopardy

(c)  “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”

1982: Stanley Wrice —  https://guardianlv.com/2013/12/torture-by-police-forced-guilty-confession-chicago-man-finally-released/

2004: Al-Nashiri —  http://web.archive.org/web/20130702105026/http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/31/220

2008: Mohammed Jawad —  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-10-28-438389687_x.htm

2009: Fouad Al-Rabiah —  https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/28/world/meast/guantanamo-former-detainees/

2011: Binyam Mohamed —  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-binyam-mohamed-torture

(d)  “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

1814: Andrew Jackson suspends Habeas Corpus —  https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Jackson-Politics-Martial-Law/dp/1572336242

1861-65: Lincoln suspends Habeas Corpus —  http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war

1863: Ex Parte Vallandigham —  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/68/243.html

1945-47: Habeas Corpus suspended in Eisentranger case —  https://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/world-war-ii-era-materials/world-war-ii-era-materials-court-cases/johnson-v-eisentrager#.Uwvr4fldWSo

2002-04: Murat Kurnaz denied Habeas Corpus —  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-terror-detainee-says-us-tortured-him/

(e)  “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

2011: Sacketts v. EPA —  https://reason.com/2011/12/15/the-epa-vs-the-constitution/

2014: Civil forfeiture laws —  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken

Violations of Amendment VI

(a)  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,”

1857: Dred Scott case —  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

1863: Ex Parte Vallandigham —  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/68/243.html

1942: Ex Parte Quirin —  https://www.oyez.org/cases/1941/1

2005-07: Jose Padilla —  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2037444.stm

2006: Military Commissions Act —  https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s3930

2011-present: NDAA —  https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law?redirect=national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

(b)  “and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,”

2002: Rasul v. Bush —  https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/rasul-v-bush

2002-07: Military Commissions —  https://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/


2013: al-Nashiri case —  https://truthout.org/articles/guantanamo-prisoner-al-nashiris-case-demonstrates-unfairness-of-military-commissions/

(c)  “and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

2002-05: Jose Padilla —  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1027.ZS.html

2004: Yaser el-Hamdi —  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/542/507.html

2012: Guantanamo and Obama —  https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/opinion/the-right-to-counsel-at-guantanamo-bay.html

Violations of Amendment VII

1996: EPA v. Condor Land —  https://www.epa.gov/alj

2008: Texas Tolls —  http://popblogculture.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-toll-authorities-violate-7th.html

2012: Entin v. Provident Life —  http://zalma.com/blog/right-to-jury-trial-in-declaratory-relief-action/

2013: Baldauf v. Florida DOR —  https://www.thecentersquare.com/florida/2013/10/14/florida-cites-english-common-law-to-deny-small-businessman-right-to-trial-by-jury/

2013: Chevron v. Donziger —  https://www.thecentersquare.com/florida/2013/10/14/florida-cites-english-common-law-to-deny-small-businessman-right-to-trial-by-jury/

Violations of Amendment VIII

(a)  “Excessive bail shall not be required,”

2004: Robert Durst —  http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/26/durst.ctv/

2004-08: Michigan judge —  https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_censured_for_excessive_bail_severe_attitude/

2012: Activist bail —  http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/dnc-activist-kept-in-jail-terrorism-watch-list/6329/

(b)  “nor excessive fines imposed,”

2012: EPA fines —  https://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-levies-438000-fines-and-mandatory-environmental-projects-school-bus-contractor 

2013: FERC fines —  https://www.law360.com/articles/406804/how-ferc-s-proposed-penalties-may-violate-8th-amendment

(c)“nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

2002: Khalid El-Masri —  https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/torturing-the-wrong-man 

2002-03: Maher Arar —  https://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/13/maher_arar_my_rendition_torture_in

2002-05: Murat Kurnaz —  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-terror-detainee-says-us-tortured-him/

2003: Omar Deghayes —  Video has been terminated on YouTube

2003-05: Waterboarding —  http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/

2003-07: Binyam Muhammad —  http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/03/08/seven-years-of-torture-binyam-mohamed-tells-his-story/

2012: Abu Omar —  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/italys-high-court-upholds-convictions-of-23-americans-in-abu-omar-rendition/2012/09/19/af06022c-0286-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html

Violations of Amendment IX

2010-present: Right to anonymous political speech —   https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2011/03/01/supreme-court-rules-corporations-dont-have-privacy-under-foia/?sh=63e169334cb5

2014: Freedom not to associate —  https://naturalrightslibertarian.com/2013/09/fredom-of-association-denied/

2014: Right to know government actions —  https://www.huffpost.com/?err_code=404&err_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F03%2F11%2Ffoia-request_n_2851980.html

2014: Freedom from identity cards —  https://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

Violations of Amendment X

2014: Unconstitutional federal agencies —  https://heritageaction.com/blog/issue-profile-unconstitutional-federal-agencies/


What is the role and status of the federal government in your life and livelihood?  Is it the limited government promised by our Founders in the Constitution?  Is its primary function to protect your “life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness?  Or has it become abusive, overbearing, corrupt, a cabal of ambitious politicians and political elites, and destructive of your rights and liberties?  Our current federal government is a bloated ambitious leviathan. It can be amply described by a quote from Pierre-Joseph Proudham from the mid-1800’s: “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government….” 

We must always keep in mind the essential truths and dire warnings given to us by two of our greatest and most passionate Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson.

Who can forget what Patrick Henry decried to the members of the Virginia convention on March 23, 1775 at the time the British redcoats, under orders from King George, were seeking out and seizing the colonists’ firearms and destroying their stockpiles of ammunition:  “It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

And Thomas Jefferson warned: “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” 

We need to get back to the rightful purpose of government and divest the current federal government of all the rest of its illusory powers and especially its control over us as individuals and productive members of society.


Our Founders concluded the Declaration of Independence with these words: “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”  They chose these words because they faced severe retribution (most probably death) by the King of England for sedition.  I choose to conclude by echoing some of Jefferson’s words…..  I appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the intention of this article and this project – that the good and decent and patriotic People of this country re-declare their full freedoms and their independence from an aggressive and ambitious government. Unless the government deconstructs, sheds all the unconstitutional offices and agencies, acknowledges that it has abused its powers and consolidated its branches so as to create a monopoly regarding its powers, abolishes the notion of “precedent” in the federal judiciary, and agrees to re-set itself and exercise only those powers expressly delegated to it in the US Constitution, then of right we ought to be free as we were meant to be and absolved from all allegiance to this tyrannical federal government.  

As I outlined above, and it is not even nearly a complete accounting, one is clearly able to see that the federal government has abused and violated almost every aspect of the Constitution over the many years. It is barely recognizable as the central government our Founders envisioned and  embodied in form in the Constitution, and which was then ratified by all of the States. Most offensively and most dangerously, its three branches (or four, if you believe the mainstream media has morphed into a fourth branch of government) have created a monopoly on the meaning, scope, and intent of the Constitution. In other words, it has created a monopoly on what powers the government has and how intimately it can insert itself into our lives, our businesses, and into our pursuits of happiness. So, what do we do?  That is the question.  Well, there is one thing that I know to be true. Talk is cheap. We can talk, complain, protest, march, petition, pray, and watch Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram and Don Bongino and Mark Levin all day long, but NONE OF THAT is going to matter or make one bit of difference. These conservative talk show hosts and pundits preach primarily to the choir. The left is shutting down our speech and not only ignoring our protests, but using them as opportunities to mock and ridicule us. Remember, we are “domestic terrorists” now. And because we are a danger to the progressive agenda of the government, we must somehow be disarmed or at least highly frustrated and burdened in our ability to keep and bear arms. God forbid we should take them up against those in government. 

We need to do what the colonists did. They had their great orators and writers – like John Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc – but they also had the “militant” wing of the resistance against Great Britain….   the Sons of Liberty. They engaged in many acts of civil disobedience, acts of interposition (such as blocking the American harbors, destroying British products that the King insisted the colonists buy, burning down royal homes and offices, and even acts of mild violence. That is what works. Every time the Sons of Liberty resisted the Crown, the Crown gave in. They repealed taxes and they gradually gave the colonists back their freedoms.  So the answer is — ACTION !!!   But what kind of action??

I support breaking up the country into at least two parts; two new countries. The political factions are far too diametrically different from each other and therein lies the problem. We cannot negotiate or reconcile without surrendering the freedom our founding generation secured for us and our great generations after that for protecting and fighting for. Freedom MUST always come first. 

Our understanding of freedom and the foundation on which our country was created and built is outlined clearly in the Declaration of Independence. It’s premise is inalienable and God-given rights and Individual Sovereignty. The Declaration talks about how these rights can never be surrendered and because they are so important, it must be the primary role of government to protect them. For that reason, our Founders created a limited government. It was created by the Constitution and all the powers it has, and will ever have (until the Constitution is lawfully amended) is outlined in it. The federal government is a “creature,” That is, it was created by the States and the People thru the compact that is the Constitution. The States independently ratified it through ratifying conventions (called up by the people and comprised of ordinary folk).  A creature can never be a master over its creators. That is the key to why we must act. That is the key to why we should break up the country. That unique and critical principle is at stake. The Declaration tells us – promises us – that if the government fails to serve the purposes for which it was instituted, it is the right, and even the duty, of the People to “alter or abolish it” and institute a new government. 

Any and every act that the government takes that supersedes or abuses, or violates, any article or provision of the Constitution (including every amendment) takes the rightful power away from another, whether it be the States or the People. This is outright usurpation.  Every such act is unconstitutional and hence, unenforceable. This is the concept behind the theory of Nullification. Whenever the government proceeds to abuse, supersede, or violate the Constitution’s limits, it is an act of tyranny.  We are witnessing the most tyrannical government of any generation. And it has to stop. The point of this article is to emphasize that we NEED to stop with the talking and the peaceful respectful protests in DC and to take action instead.

It starts with re-introducing ourselves to perhaps our most important of founding documents – the Declaration of Independence – which declares to we the citizens of the united States and to the world the government philosophy on which we fought for our independence and the principles on which we established our unique and noble nation. It starts with us re-acknowledging the rights and liberties on which our country was founded back in 1776 (when the Declaration was adopted) and 1781 (the treaty signed to officially separate us from Great Britain)?  Patrick Henry perhaps said it best at the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 5, 1788: “If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.” 

We NEED to re-dedicate ourselves to preserving the country as it was founded for liberty sake, and therefore we, as our great Founding Fathers did before us, must re-Declare our Independence from this tyrannical government and corrupted political system. Charlotte Cushman explained it perfectly in her article “Founding Principle of the United States of America: Individual Rights” (July 2016):

Any violation of our rights completely contradicts the ideas of our Founding Fathers who were very serious about individual freedom.  On February 25, 2011 Yaron Brook gave a rousing speech at the Tea Party Patriots Summit in Arizona where he pointed this out about the Founding Fathers: “They didn’t say, ‘We just want a little bit less taxes, please, King George.’ They didn’t say, ‘Give us some liberty, please, King George.’ They changed the world because they asked a fundamental question. And the question they asked is, ‘Who does your life – does my life – belong to?’ That’s a question that people had never asked, because it was always obvious: your life belongs to the state, to the king, to some emperor, to somebody else – and it’s your job to do his bidding. The Founders of this country said ‘No: sovereignty belongs with the individual. My life is mine. Your life is yours. And nobody can take that away – not a king; but not even a majority!”

If we want to restore freedom to our country, we must re-discover our roots. Our Founding Fathers were so committed to their revolutionary ideas that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the document that laid the moral foundation for the United States of America—the Declaration of Independence.  We need to be willing to do the same.  We need to be willing to stand up and say: “My life belongs to me, not to the government, not to the state, not to King George, not to a welfare program, but…to me!”  We need to believe in that principle and commit to that principle, the principle of individual rights.

I want you to look at the birth of a miracle: the United States of America. If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence.  The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully – and 200 years have not been enough for other countries to understand it.’  — Ayn Rand “

Just like parasites (including leeches, intestinal worms, viruses, bacteria, fleas, and ticks) suck the life and health out of a healthy host, Democrats, leftists, progressives, Antifa, atheists, and the like are like parasites on our healthy conservative society. They have destroyed our essential institutions (like the traditional family unit, our churches and their doctrines, and our free exercise of religion in any public place) and they are attacking our traditional and historic natural and civil rights. Why are they succeeding in doing so?  And why are we allowing them to get away with it? 

James Monroe once said that “he best form of government is that which is most likely to prevent the greatest sum of evil.”  And this is true. As the great Roman Senator, Cicero, once explained, the purpose of good law is to prevent and punish evil and wrongdoing and to reward good behavior. As we have all observed for many years now, our current federal government, and especially those Democratic congressmen and senators, and Deep State members in its various agencies have gone overboard to encourage and reward all that is bad in and for our society and to suppress, mock, and punish all that is good.

When I read Glenn Beck’s book, Overton Window, I was struck by one particular paragraph. It read: “The riddle today is the same one faced by our Founding Fathers when they began their experiment.  Societies need government.  Governments elevate men into power, and men who seek power are prone to corruption.  It spreads like a disease.  And sooner or later the end result is always a slide into tyranny.  That’s the way it’s always been.  And so this government of the United States, so brilliantly and deliberately structured by our Founders, was designed to keep that weakness of human nature in check.  But it required the people to participate daily, to be vigilante.  And they have not.  It demanded that they behave as though their government was their servant, but they have not. While they slept, the servant has become their master.”   It struck me because it seemed a perfect summation of what has happened here in America with our government, to the destruction and decay of our individual and social existence.

I always knew Hollywood’s Moses, Charlton Heston, was a great actor. But as of the last ten years, I came to recognize that he was a great American patriot as well. He was president of the NRA, has been the featured speaker at several law school graduations, and has spoken up very publicly about what are treasured values are.  For example, he once said: “Every one of us born beneath this blessed American sky has rights that no one can take away because no one gave them to us.  They were ours from the beginning.  Each of us has a birth certificate, but it didn’t give us life.  It merely put on paper what everybody knows – that we’re alive. In the same way, the Constitution doesn’t give us rights.  It just puts on paper what everybody knows – that we are free to say and write and think and work and worship as we choose.  We’re also free to own a firearm, and that right shall not be infringed.  A firearm is the fundamental symbol of our freedom”   

And he also said: “Our core beliefs are the work of all the men and women of our childhoods – a constellation of people who orbited around us, tugging here and pushing there, day after day as we grew, shaping our beliefs and carving our characters until we became who we are.  Remember them?  Parents, who didn’t just talk about values but who lived out those values. The gym coach, whose knotted robe taught you to pull your own weight.  The scout master, who surely had a job and family to tend to, but always made time for you. Clergymen, whose moral compass helped guide your way. The grocery store owner, who played along with Mom in an unscripted scolding that ended your candy-pilfering days forever.  The principal, whose handmade paddle meant punishment for sure, but who also showed the meaning of forgiveness and who gave you the opportunity to make a fresh new start.  The neighborhood teenager, who bragged about joining the Army but whose silence after the war taught you even more. The teacher, who stood up for the weak and who stared down the bully, taught you that everyone should be treated the same.  The neighborhood policeman, who not only knew the law but somehow also knew what you were thinking. All those strangers, men and women, you happened to watch at football games who instinctively put their hands over their hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance and who stood with their eyes transfixed on the flag.  All those people…. they gave you a sense of geography about your life. They taught you where you fit in, what is right and what is wrong, what you must be responsible for, and what values are important and why.  Each of us is a tapestry of threads, woven by all of them.  This is the living torch that they pass to us.  And in turn, we must pass to others.”    

Let us never forget what one of our greatest Founding Fathers emphasized: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”  Nor let us forget what Thomas Paine wrote: “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”  And “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”   He, of course, was restating a core principle of the Declaration of Independence.

Ronald Reagan reminded Americans again when he offered this critical warning: ““Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Please take all this to heart and share.


Declaration of Independence, transcript, from the National Archives –  https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Charlotte Cushman,“Founding Principle of the United States of America: Individual Rights,”American Thinker, July 4, 2016.  Referenced: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/founding_principle_of_the_united_states_of_america_individual_rights.html

Thomas Eddlem, “A Legacy of Violations of the U.S. Bill of Rights, Hyperlinked,” The New American, February 26, 2014.  Referenced at:  https://thenewamerican.com/a-legacy-of-violations-the-u-s-bill-of-rights-hyperlinked/

Joel M. Killion, “The Bill of Rights Violated,” WilsonNC Tea Party, May 22, 2014.  Referenced at:  http://wilsonncteaparty.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-bill-of-rights-violated/   [Joel originally wrote the paper in 2014 for a college assignment]    *** Full article was incorporated in this paper with Joel’s permission

James Madison, Helevidius, No. 3 (September 7, 1793)

Declaration of Independence –  https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” issued by Secretary of Homeland Security on April 7, 2009.  Accessed at: https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Dennis Prager, “I Now Better Understand the Good German,” Townhall, January 5, 2021. Referenced at: https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2021/01/05/i-now-better-understand-the-good-german-n2582563

Dennis Prager, “The Good American,” Townhall, January 12, 2021. Referenced at:  https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2021/01/12/the-good-american-n2582982

Andrew Brookhiser, “That Time When Jefferson Tried to Have a Supreme Court Justice Impeached,” HistoryNet, August 2019.  Referenced at:  https://www.historynet.com/the-time-when-jefferson-impeached-a-scotus-judge.htm

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny.  Referenced at:  http://www.robgagnon.net/JeffersonOnJudicialTyranny.htm

Thomas Jefferson – Thoughts on the Judiciary.  Referenced at:  https://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/28

Thomas Jefferson, Quotes –  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Full text of Patrick Henry’s Speech in Richmond, Virginia (March 23, 1775 – “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”).  Referenced at:  https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/coretexts/_files/resources/texts/1775%20Patrick%20Henry%20Liberty%20or%20Death.pdf

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s State of the Union Message to Congress, January 11, 1944, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum.  Referenced at:  http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/address_text.html

Josh Jones, “F.D.R. Proposes a Second Bill of Rights: A Decent Job, Education & Health Care Will Keep Us Free from Despotism (1944),” Open Culture (History, Politics section), August16, 2017   Referenced at:  https://www.openculture.com/2017/08/f-d-r-proposes-a-second-bill-of-rights.html

Lindsay Wise, Siobhan Hughes, “Impeachment Article Against Trump to Be Delivered to Senate Monday,” MSN News, January 22, 2021.  Referenced at:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/impeachment-article-against-trump-to-be-delivered-to-senate-monday/ar-BB1d05zH?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

David Deschesne, “Unconstitutional Federal Government Agencies (Partial Listing),” Christian Political News, September 8, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://christianpoliticalparty.com/unconstitutional-federal-government-agencies-partial-listing/

Works Cited Specifically in the Section on VIOLATIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS:

“The 5th Amendment.” Revolutionary War & Beyond. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014. <http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/5th-amendment.html&gt;.

“9th Amendment to the US Constitution.” Revolutionary War and Beyond. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. <http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/9th-amendment.html&gt;.

“The 10th Amendment.” Revolutionary War and Beyond. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/10th-amendment.html&gt;.

Adams, Becket. “Third Amendment Violated? Nev. Police Allegedly Invade Family’s Home to Use During SWAT Call, Arrest Two for ‘Obstruction’ When Owner Refuses.” The Blaze. N.p., 8 July 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/08/third-amendment-violated-nev-police-allegedly-invade-familys-home-to-use-during-swat-call-arrest-two-for-obstruction-when-owner-refuses&gt;.

“Amendment VII: Jury Trial in Civil Disputes.” The Rutherford Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. <https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/amendment_vii_jury_trial_in_civil_disputes/&gt;.

Associated Press. “Report: NSA Secretly Broke into Yahoo, Google Data Centers, Collected Millions of Records Each Day.” The Blaze. N.p., 30 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/30/report-nsa-secretly-broke-into-yahoo-google-data-centers-collected-millions-of-records-each-day&gt;.

“The Bonus Army March.” American Treasuries of the Library of Congress. The Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. <http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm203.html&gt;.

“The Bonus March (May-July, 1932).” UNC-TV/American Experience. PBS, n.d. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX89.html&gt;.

Darcy, Oliver. “Timeline of Terror: Benghazi One Year Later.” The Blaze. N.p., 11 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/11/timeline-of-terror-benghazi-one-year-later/&gt;.

“The Declaration of Independence: a Transcription.” The Charters 0f Freedom. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html&gt;.

Grossman, Jonathan. “Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage.” United States Department of Labor. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. <http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm&gt;.

Hallowell, Billy. “White House Declines to Weigh in on Petition to Grant German Homeschool Family Asylum…After Petition Garners Enough Signatures for Response.” The Blaze. N.p., 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/15/white-house-declines-to-weigh-in-on-petition-to-grant-german-homeschool-family-asylum&gt;.

Hanson, Ph.D., David J. “The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.” Alcohol Problems and Solution. The State University of New York At Potsdam, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/YouthIssues/1092767630.html#.UzCdb_ldWtY&gt;.

Howerton, Jason. “It Gets Worse: More Shocking Details about DOJ Spying on Fox News.” The Blaze. N.p., 21 May 2013. Web. 8 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/21/doj-accused-of-going-even-further-than-first-thought-in-probe-of-fox-news-reporter&gt;.

—. “Sens. Rand Paul and John Cornyn Introduce Bill to Limit Power of Government to Seize Private Property.” The Blaze. N.p., 21 June 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/21/sens-rand-paul-and-john-cornyn-introduce-bill-to-limit-power-of-government-to-seize-private-property/&gt;.

Ingram, David. “Associated Press Says U.S. Government Seized Journalists’ Phone Records.” Reuters Canada. N.p., 13 May 2013. Web. 8 Mar. 2014. <http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE94C0ZW20130513&gt;.

“Kelo V. City of New London, Conn.” Rule of Law Initiative. The Heritage Foundation, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. <http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism/cases/kelo-v-city-of-new-london-conn&gt;.

Klimas, Liz. “Connecting the Dots: a Timeline of NSA’s Spying.” The Blaze. N.p., 6 June 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/06/connecting-the-dots-a-timeline-of-nsa-spying&gt;.

—. “IRS Accused of Stealing 60 Million Medical Records That Could Include Every Calif. State Judge and Hollywood Execs.” The Blaze. N.p., 16 May 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/16/irs-accused-of-stealing-60-million-medical-records-that-could-include-every-calif-state-judge-and-hollywood-execs&gt;.

Lucas, Fred. “Obama Administration’s Two Quiet New Executive Actions on Who Can Buy a Gun.” The Blaze. N.p., 3 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/03/obama-administrations-two-quiet-new-executive-actions-on-who-can-buy-a-gun/&gt;.

Lyngaas, Sean. “NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake Criticizes Government ‘secrecy Regime’.” The National Press Club. N.p., 16 Mar. 2013. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. <http://press.org/news-multimedia/news/nsa-whistleblower-thomas-drake-criticizes-government-secrecy-regime&gt;.

Marimow, Ann E. “A Rare Peek into a Justice Department Leak Probe.” The Washington Post. N.p., 19 May 2013. Web. 8 Mar. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html&gt;.

“Martin Van Buren, 8th Vice President (1833-1837).” Art & History. United States Senate, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/martin_vanburen.pdf&gt;.

Morgenstern, Madeleine. “John McCain Says ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Need Review.” The Blaze. N.p., 21 July 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/21/john-mccain-says-stand-your-ground-laws-need-review&gt;.

Napolitano, Andrew P. “Health-Care Reform and the Constitution.” The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 15 Sept. 2009. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548&gt;.

—. “Taxation Is Theft — So Why Do Americans Put up with It?” Fox News. N.p., 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/18/taxation-is-theft-so-why-do-americans-put-up-with-it&gt;.

“NDAA.” Blog of Rights. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa&gt;.

Nichols, Michelle. “Kerry Signs U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, Says Won’t Harm U.S. Rights.” Reuters. N.p., 25 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-un-assembly-kerry-treaty-idUSBRE98O0WV20130925&gt;.

“No Compromise: NRA Takes on United Nations.” NRA-Media. National Rifle Association (NRA), n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11466/no-compromise-nra-takes-on-united-nations&gt;.

“NRA Stops U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.” NRA-ILA: News & Media. National Rifle Association (NRA), 27 July 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-stops-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx&gt;.

Obama, Barack. “Transcript of the State of the Union Address.” Real Clear Politics. N.p., 28 Jan. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/28/transcript_of_the_state_of_the_union_address_121390-4.html&gt;.

Pavlich, Katie. “Riveting and Chilling: Victims of IRS Targeting Tell Their Stories on Capitol Hill.” TownHall.com. N.p., 4 June 2013. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. <http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/06/04/riveting-and-chilling-victims-of-irs-targeting-tell-their-war-stories-on-capitol-hill-n1612696&gt;.

“A Progressive Turn.” The Supreme Court: Timeline. PBS, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/timeline/1910.html&gt;.

Reynolds, Glenn H. “Uphold the Third Amendment: Column.” USA Today. N.p., 7 July 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2014. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/07/third-amendment-henderson-nevada-police-column/2496689&gt;.

RT. “Obama Authorizes Five More Years of Warrantless Wiretapping.” RT.com. N.p., 31 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://rt.com/usa/obama-fisa-faa-signed-143&gt;.

Seidl, Jonathon M. “Federal Judge Now Throws up Roadblock for Those in Illinois Looking to Immediately Carry Concealed Weapons.” The Blaze. N.p., 29 July 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/29/federal-judge-now-throws-up-roadblock-for-those-in-illinois-looking-to-immediately-carry-concealed-weapons/&gt;.

Sexton, Buck. “Can the ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Send Americans to Military Prison without Trial?” The Blaze. N.p., 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/08/can-the-indefinite-detention-bill-send-americans-to-military-prison-without-trial&gt;.

Skousen, Cleon W. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution. The National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2007. Print.

Spakovsky, Hans V. “Storming the Barricades in Washington.” The Foundry. The Heritage Foundation, 3 Oct. 2013. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. <http://blog.heritage.org/2013/10/03/storming-the-barricades-in-washington&gt;.

Staver, Mat. “IRS Proposed Regulations Will Silence Conservative Organizations.” The Blaze/Liberty Counsel. N.p., 17 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/irs-proposed-regulations-will-silence-conservative-organizations&gt;.

“Testimony of Catherine Engelbrecht.” House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. United States House of Representatives, 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2014. <http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Engelbrecht.pdf&gt;.

“Tull V. United States – Case Brief.” Lawnix. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/tull-us.html&gt;.

Turner, Adam. “Case Against ‘Innocence of Muslims’ Filmmaker Raises Eyebrows.” The Blaze/Endowment for Middle East Truth. N.p., 19 Nov. 2012. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/case-against-innocence-of-muslims-filmmaker-raises-eyebrows/&gt;.

“U.S. Senate Stands with NRA in Strongly Opposing U.N Gun Control Efforts.” NRA-ILA. National Rifle Association, 22 July 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. <http://nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/7/us-senate-stands-with-nra-in-strongly.aspx?s=%22UN+Arms+Trade+Treaty+(UN+ATT)%22&st=&ps=&gt;.

“Your Right to Be Free from Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” Jailhouse Lawyer’s Handbook. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. <http://jailhouselaw.org/your-right-to-be-free-from-cruel-and-unusual-punishment&gt;.


ADDENDUM I  – The original Declaration of Independence, full text, written by Thomas Jefferson:

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


ADDENDUM II – A List of Unconstitutional Federal Agencies (Partial Listing) 

Advanced Research Projects Agency

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

African Development Foundation

Agency for International Development

Agricultural Marketing Service

Agricultural Research Service

Agriculture, Department of

Economic Research Service

Energy, Office of

Environmental Quality, Office of

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Federal Crop Insurance Corp.

Food and Nutrition Service

Foreign Agricultural Service

Forest Service

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards


Information Resources Management

Inspector General, Office of

National Agricultural Library

National Agricultural Statistics Service

National Resources Conservation Service

Operations, Office of

Procurement and Property Management

Rural Business – Cooperative Service

Rural Development Administration

Rural Housing Service

Rural Telephone Bank

Rural Utilities Service

Secretary of Agriculture, Office of

Transportation, Office of

World Outlook Board


American Battle Monuments Commission

American Indians, Office of Trustee

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Appalachian Regional Commission

Architectural/Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Arctic Research Commission

Assassination Records Review Board

Benefits Review Board

Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, Office of

Blind or Severely Disabled, Committee for Purchase from People who are

Board for International Broadcasting

Broadcasting Board of Governors

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Central Intelligence Agency

Child Support Enforcement

Children and Families Administration

Civil Rights, Commission on

Civil Rights, Office for

Commerce Department

Economic Analysis, Bureau of

Economic Development Administrations

Emergency Management Assistance

Fishery Conservation and Management

International Trade Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

National Weather Service

Productivity, Technology and Innovation, Assistant Secretary

Technology, Undersecretary for

Commercial Space Transportation

Commodity Credit Corporation

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Community Planning and Development

Community Service, Office of

Construction Industry Collective Bargaining


Consumer Product Safety Commission

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Corporation for National and Community Service

Cost Accounting Standards Board

Council on Environmental Quality

Delaware River Basin Commission

Drug Enforcement Administration

Economic Affairs, Undersecretary of

Economic Analysis, Bureau of

Economic Development Administration

Economic Research Service

Education, Department of

Bilingual Education and Minority Languages

Affairs, Office of

Civil Rights, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement

Elementary and Secondary Education

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Postsecondary Education

Secretary of Educations

Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of

Vocational and Adult Education

Emergency Oil and Gas Guaranteed Loan Board

Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Employees Loyalty Board

Employment and Training Administration

Employment Standards Administration

Endangered Species Committee

Energy, Department of

Energy, Office of

Engineers, Corps of

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Quality, Office of

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Equal Opportunity, Office of Assistant Secretary

Export Administration, Bureau of

Export-Import Bank of the United States

Family Assistance, Office of

Farm Service Agency

Farm Credit Administration

Farm Credit System Insurance Corp.

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Claims Collections Standards

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Contract Compliance Programs

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Federal Election Commission

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Employees Life Insurance

Federal Employees Health Benefits

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council

Federal Financing Bank

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office

Federal Labor Relations Authority

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Federal Management Regulation

Federal Maritime Administration

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

Federal Procurement Policy, Office of

Federal Property Management Regulations

Federal Property Management Regulations System

Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

Federal Service Impasse Panel

Federal Trade Commission

Federal Transit Administration

Federal Travel Regulation System

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Fine Arts, Commission on

Fiscal Service

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Fishery Conservation and Management

Food and Drug Administration

Food and Nutrition Service

Foreign Agricultural Service

Foreign Assets Control, Office of

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

Foreign Service Grievance Board

Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Board

Foreign Service Labor Relations Board

Foreign Trade Zones Board

Forest Service

Geological Survey

Government Ethics, Office of

Government National Mortgage Association

Harry S. Truman Scholarship Program

Health and Human Services, Dept. of

Health Care Financing Administration

Housing and Urban Development

Federal Housing Commissioner

Human Development Services

Independent Counsel, Office of

Indian Affairs, Bureau of

Indian Arts and Crafts Board

Indian Health Service

Information Resources Management

Information Security Oversight Office

Inspector General

Institute of Peace, U.S.

Inter-American Foundation

Intergovernmental Relations, Advisory Commission

Interior Department

Internal Revenue Service

International Boundary and Water Commission

International Development, U.S. Agency on

International Development Cooperation Agency

International Fishing and Related Activities

International Investment

International Joint Commission, U.S. and Canada

International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board

International Trade Administration

International Trade Commission

James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation

Japan-U.S. Friendship Commission

Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries

Labor Department

Labor-Management Standards, Office of

Land Management, Bureau of

Legal Services Corporation

Management and Budget, Office of

Marine Mammal Commission

Maritime Administration

Micronesian Status Negotiations

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Minerals Management Service

Mines, Bureau of

Minority Business Development Agency

Monetary Offices

Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, Office of

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National and Community Service Corp.

National Capital Planning Commission

National Commission for Employment Policy

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

National Council on Disability

National Counterintelligence Center

National Credit Union Administration

National Drug Control Policy, Office of

National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

National Imagery and Mapping Agency

National Indian Gaming Commission

National Institute for Literacy

National Institute for Standards and Technology

National Labor Relations Board

National Mediation Board

National Park Service

National Railroad Adjustment Board

National Science Foundation

National Telecommunications and Information


Natural Resources Conservation Service

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp.

Northeast Dairy Compact Commission

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Occupational Safety and Health Review Board

Oklahoma City National Memorial Trust Operations Office

Overseas Private Investment Corp.

Payment from a non-Federal Source for Travel Expenses

Payment of Expenses Connected With the Death of Certain Employees

Peace Corps

Pennsylvania Avenue Development Commission

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in Armed Forces

Presidential Documents

Presidio Trust

Prisons, Bureau of

Procurement and Property Management

Productivity, Technology and Innovation, Assistant Secretary

Public Contracts, Dept. of Labor

Public and Indian Housing

Public Health Service

Railroad Retirement Board

Reclamation, Bureau of

Refugee Resettlement, Office of

Regional Action Planning Commissions Relocation Allowances

Research and Special Programs Administration

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Rural Development Administration

Rural Housing Service

Rural Telephone Bank

Rural Utilities Service

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Science and Technology Policy, Office of

Secret Service

Securities and Exchange Commission

Selective Service System

Small Business Administration

Smithsonian Institution

Social Security Administration

Soldiers’ and Airmens’ Home

Special Counsel, Office of

Surface Mining and Reclamation Appeals, Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Office of

Surface Transportation Board

Susquehanna River Basin Commission

Technology Administration

Technology Policy, Assistant Secretary of

Technology, Undersecretary for

Tennessee Valley Authority

Thrift Supervision Office

Trade Representative, U.S.

Transportation Dept.

Transportation, Office of

Transportation Safety Administration

Transportation Statistics Bureau

Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission

Veterans Affairs Dept.

Veterans Employment and Training

Wage and Hour Division

Worker’s Compensation Programs

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Where Are Today’s Revolutionary Patriots – Ones like Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, George Mason – And Where are Today’s Rabble Rousers Like the Colonial Sons of Liberty?

by Diane Rufino, Dec. 23, 2020

Our country is, no doubt, in a horrible mess – an embarrassment to the world and on the verge of destroying the very goodness, principles, and freedom that we had been founded on. For the second time in our history, we are witnessing the fraudulent theft of a presidential election by the overly-ambitious Democratic Party (Chicago engaging in massive fraud to tip the scale to John F. Kennedy, when it was Nixon who actually won the legitimate votes).  Democrats planned and executed a massive scheme involving election tampering, voter fraud, massive voter and election irregularities, and other unconscionable election manipulation for the purpose of stealing the 2020 election from one of the most effective presidents of all time – Donald Trump. It was nothing short of a political coup, with a virtual moron waiting to occupy the White House.  

The Tenth Amendment Center re-posted an article this month titled: America Embraces the Tyranny the Founders Fought to Reject in which the author Mike Maharrey wrote:  “The American Founding generation fought a long, bloody war to free themselves from a tyrannical government, only to see the people eventually embrace the very system they struggled to throw off. That may seem like a stinging indictment, but careful examination of U.S. governance today reveals that it rests on essentially the same philosophical foundation as the 18th century British system Americans rejected. The founding generation developed a brand new conception of government, resting it on the consent of the governed and the idea that governing institutions must operate within constitutional constraints. Today, we still see the vestiges of those founding ideals in political rhetoric and popular conscience, but the U.S. government long ago threw off constitutional fetters and now functions much like the English system Americans fought to free themselves from.”

It was not long ago before our Founders invoked the hand of the Almighty (Providence) in our creation and in our intention to remain a land of the free. And given how a chunk of anti-USA, anti-liberty, Godless, socialist/communist, and even non-citizens have used every vile tactic known and created to push their agenda, to disrupt and destroy the historic and critical institutions necessary for a moral, honest, and good people and its vestiges, especially those of education, religion, science, and morality, and has wreaked havoc on the peace and tranquility of our country and has, little by little, chiseled the force and effectiveness from the face of the Constitution and has created in its wake the leviathan of a federal government (including a Swamp and Deep State) that we are subjected and subjugated to today, we face the most important question we can ask today. That question is this: How long can this country endure still clinging to at least some of the principles on which we were founded?  We certainly don’t have a population intelligent enough, moral enough, informed enough, dedicated enough, or dutybound enough to care about our future. In short, our freedoms and liberties matter little to them, the Constitution as written for us and for which hundreds of thousands shed their blood and died for her ideals matter little to them (let’s face it, they don’t even understand the Constitution or what its grand purpose is), and the longevity of the “greatest country on Earth” or “the freest country on Earth” matters little to them. To them, it’s about how much government can give them and do for them, and how much the government can wield its immense power and pass laws and policies to redistribute wealth from the wealthy (but mostly the middle class) to those who live in poverty.  (Yet, it’s astonishing how so many claim to be poor but are among the most obese in our communities, have the nicest nails, and have their hair done).

In other words, the most important question we must ask is “Where are today’s revolutionary patriots, ones like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and George Washington?  And where are today’s rabble rousers like the colonial Sons of Liberty?  Where are those with the courage, the cunning, the intelligence, the articulation, the ambition, and the singular motivation to stand up for Individual Liberty, to engage in civil disobedience, and to fight tooth and nail against the tyranny that has infected our government.  

Patrick Henry, perhaps our most vocal, passionate, and articulate of founders for the security of individual liberty, delivered a stirring speech to open the Virginia Convention on June 5, 1788, which met to debate the question of whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States: 

Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the  very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I was possessed with talents, or possessed of anything that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.

Having premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which, I confess, are not extensive, go into the discussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old—fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old—fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American; but suspicions have gone forth —’ suspicions of my integrity — publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty—three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country. I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my professions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded to the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. I am answered by gentlemen, that, though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none of the dangers I apprehended. I conceive this new government to be one of those dangers: it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. The Confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest encomium: it carried us through a long and dangerous war; it rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation; it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses: and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous, be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of energy? Consider what you are about to do before you part with the government. Take longer time in reckoning things; revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe; similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome — instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned by the honorable gentleman, who presides, against faction and turbulence. I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge, also, the new form of government may effectually prevent it: yet there is another thing it will as effectually do — it will oppress and ruin the people.

There are sufficient guards placed against sedition and licentiousness; for, when power is given to this government to suppress these, or for any other purpose, the language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal; but when this Constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, sir, a fatal ambiguity — an ambiguity which is very astonishing. In the clause under consideration, there is the strangest language that I can conceive. I mean, when it says that there shall not be more representatives than one for every thirty thousand. Now, sir, how easy is it to evade this privilege! “The number shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” This may be satisfied by one representative from each state. Let our numbers be ever so great, this immense continent may, by this artful expression, be reduced to have but thirteen representatives. I confess this construction is not natural; but the ambiguity of the expression lays a good ground for a quarrel. Why was it not clearly and unequivocally expressed, that they should be entitled to have one for every thirty thousand? This would have obviated all disputes; and was this difficult to be done? What is the inference? When population increases, and a state shall send representatives in this proportion, Congress may remand them, because the right of having one for every thirty thousand is not clearly expressed. This possibility of reducing the number to one for each state approximates to probability by that other expression — “but each state shall at least have one representative.” Now, is it not clear that, from the first expression, the number might be reduced so much that some states should have no representatives at all, were it not for the insertion of this last expression? And as this is the only restriction upon them, we may fairly conclude that they may restrain the number to one from each state. Perhaps the same horrors may hang over my mind again. I shall be told I am continually afraid: but, sir, I have strong cause of apprehension. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered; in other parts, absolutely taken away. How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone — not sufficiently secured in criminal — this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants. It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength — an army, and the militia of the states. This is an idea extremely ridiculous: gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? The honorable gentleman said that great danger would ensue if the Convention rose without adopting this system. I ask, Where is that danger? I see none. Other gentlemen have told us, within these walls, that the union is gone, or that the union will be gone. Is not this trifling with the judgment of their fellow—citizens? Till they tell us the grounds of their fears, I will consider them as imaginary. I rose to make inquiry where those dangers were; they could make no answer: I believe I never shall have that answer. Is there a disposition in the people of this country to revolt against the dominion of laws? Has there been a single tumult in Virginia? Have not the people of Virginia, when laboring under the severest pressure of accumulated distresses, manifested the most cordial acquiescence in the execution of the laws? What could be more awful than their unanimous acquiescence under general distresses? Is there any revolution in Virginia? Whither is the spirit of America gone? Whither is the genius of America fled? It was but yesterday, when our enemies marched in triumph through our country. Yet the people of this country could not be appalled by their pompous armaments: they stopped their carer, and victoriously captured them. Where is the peril, now, compared to that? Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms. Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe; that country is engaged in more arduous business: from that quarter there is no cause of fear: you may sleep in safety forever for them.

Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties: to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty.

Two days later, on June 7, Patrick Henry delivered a dramatic appeal for the need to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution and also a stern warning should the States fail to do so in forming their first common government. He urged: 

Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government.. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquility prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted …….. Make the best of this new government–say it is composed by anything but inspirationyou ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

I take the words, the advice, and the warnings of our Founders very seriously as they alone went through the tumultuous years when England sought to subjugate the American colonies and to deprive them of the rights and liberties endowed and reserved to them by the English Bill of Rights and even the Magna Carta, the threat of retribution by the King and Parliament for daring to assert those rights, the indignation of King George at the colonists for daring to remonstrate (protest) against his mistreatment of them, the humiliation of having the King disband colonial legislatures and assemblies, of having Royal governors and generals rule them, of being taxed without representation, and of having their guns and ammunition seized and destroyed, the threat of death by hanging for daring to declare their separation from England by issuing the Declaration of Independence and other such documents (“For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”), and the horror, death, and destruction involved in fighting for their independence.  They were witness to the tyranny in the American colonies that those in England suffered for hundreds of years at the whim of the King.  To them, individual liberty meant everything; it was something that was certainly worth fighting for. It was something that freedom-loving people felt compelled to do. In England, the country which gave us the history to support our founding documents, human rights and individual liberty were not associated with the reign of a King. Rarely did the English kings respect the many compacts they signed to recognize the rights of his subjects. Our early settlers and founders knew that if they were to enjoy the liberty that nature and God bestowed upon them, they would have to design a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” There must be no king, no monarch, no concentrated aggressive government.  Government must be absolutely obligated to secure and protect every individual’s natural (inalienable) and civil right.

We Americans today don’t think like them. Heck, a good chunk of people in our country were allowed to come here illegally and have no meaningful connection to our gloried history and the foundation we have based on grand and noble principles. We are too far removed from the circumstances that led to the revolution. We’ve lost the revolutionary spirit.

Mr. Maharrey continues in his article America Embraces the Tyranny the Founders Fought to Reject

In America, law was king and constitutions stood as the supreme law of the land. It wasn’t that the British system lacked a constitution, but its unwritten nature and the English conception of its place in the political order was vastly different than the one that evolved in the American states. In American thought, constitutions remained above governments. They limited the action of every governmental branch, and political systems were subject to words of their constitutions. In short, constitutions stood as the supreme law of the land, and the entire system of government flowed out of them.  (In other words, the Constitution created the “common” or federal government and by consent of the people of the states that ratified the document, the government’s powers were only intended to be those listed expressly in that compact).

In the English conception, the constitution was not a superior law set above the government. In a sense it was the government. The actions of Parliament, the courts and the King formed the substance of the constitution and were in no way limited by it.

In the British system, the people were not sovereign – Parliament was. In essence, the government itself enjoyed supremacy. As historian Gordon S. Wood put it in the Creation of the American Republic, any limits on Parliament were strictly theoretical – even moral and natural law restrictions. Constitutional and legal limits only bound lawmakers as far as lawmakers were willing to be bound.

For the Englishman, there was no distinction between the ‘constitution or frame of government’ and the ‘system of laws.’ They were the same. Every act of Parliament was, in essence, part of the constitution. Wood quotes Blackstone to make this point:

The English constitution therefore could not be any sort of fundamental law. Most eighteenth-century writers…could not conceive of the constitution as anything anterior and superior to the government and ordinary law, but rather regarded itself, as ‘that assemblage of laws, customs and institutions which form the general system; according to which the several powers of the state are distributed, and their respective rights are secured to the different members of the community.’ The English constitution was not, as the Americans eventually came to see with condescension, committed to parchment.’

Wood makes the implications of this system crystal clear, writing, ‘All law customary and statutory was thus constitutional.’

In a nutshell, the 18th century British system the Americans went to war to free themselves from rested on a living, breathing constitution. The government itself defined and enforced whatever limits it might have. Essentially, it was unlimited in power and authority.

As American political thought evolved, the English systems became absurd. Political power was conceived as limited, first by principle, and second by the will of the people as expressed through written constitutions.

The founding generation believed equity – justice according to natural law or right – bound and limited all political power. Government served a limited purpose, as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, ‘to secure these rights,’ life, liberty and property. It followed that the people establishing government retained the right and authority to maintain it within those limits. Government was not supreme; it was merely an agent of the people. Written constitutions served a limiting purpose. They provide the ‘political bible’ that Paine referred to, specifically circumscribing the scope of governmental power. As Paine put it: ‘A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a right.’

Within this philosophical framework, a sovereign government institution such as Parliament is fundamentally tyrannical.

Even a casual look at American governance today reveals a system having much more in common with the 18th century British model than the one the founding generation forged nearly 250 years ago. America operates under a ‘living breathing’ constitution with the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the role of sovereign.

In 1776, the British Parliament acted with absolute sovereign authority. Today, the federal government rules with that same kind of unlimited power. The federal government determines the extent of its own authority through the Supreme Court. Any limits on Congress or the president are merely theoretical, constrained only by the whims of five out of nine politically connected lawyers. Every opinion of the Supreme Court becomes ‘part of the fabric of the Constitution.’

For all practical purposes, the federal government today operates without any limits at all. Everything the federal government does and approves is considered “constitutional.”  Even though the founders committed the U.S. Constitution to parchment, judges, politicians and academics have morphed the meaning of words and changed the character of the “supreme law of the land” into something that the framers and ratifiers would scarcely recognize.

Americans won the Revolution, but they squandered the fruits of victory in a quest for government solutions to every problem. Instead of a limited government committed to protecting basic rights – life, liberty and property – we have an institution that attempts to control every aspect of our lives.

We have become what our forefathers sought to destroy.”

We have become what our forefathers sought to destroy and we have become the generation of Americans that our Founders feared – too weak, too skeptical, and too disillusioned to do what is right and what is necessary. The intentional tampering of the 2020 presidential election has proven to us mere peasants that we no longer have a say in government; our voices have become meaningless unless it is for the Democratic (demonic) Party. The creature created by the People with the Constitution has now become the Master. Political Parties have assumed the individual’s Right to Vote and have used that right recklessly, dishonestly, and with evil and malicious intent. The end game is power….. eternal and unchecked power, as well as the transformation of the United States according to its grand scheme of progressive thought and equality in all things (except as it touches on the grand exalted political elites).

I have held this point of view for many years now, but the events of this election season have solidified my position. Sadly, it is a fatal position. When I bring up this subject with family, friends, and fellow patriots, most have much more optimism than I. They somehow believe that good and honesty and decency and love of country will win out and triumph over the consistently scheming and dishonest progressives (ie, Democrats). Good can never win out over evil when evil has the ability to rig the system and conduct themselves according to a different set of rules, standards, ethics, and morality.

It appears I am not the only one who thinks as I do. I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on December 23 when a caller, a woman named Angie from Minnesota, called in to comment on the situation in Georgia. She talked about the futility of voting and believing that votes are a sacred civic exercise by citizens. She talked about the futility of trying to do what is right for the country (aka, keeping Trump in office) because the Dominion machines, which have been proven to be programmable by a forensic audit, are in place to ensure the outcome of an election. “Let’s face it, it’s a take-over” she said. 

Here is the transcript of Angie’s dialogue with Rush:  (The Rush Limbaugh Show, December 23)

RUSH: This is Angie in Big Lake, Minnesota.

ANGIE: And I have a comment, and it kind of piggybacks on earlier when you were talking about the Georgia runoff with another caller. And what I think is I really — and I hate to be the Debbie Downer here. But I really think that this is a takeover. And this runoff in January, you know, get out and vote. People want to get out and march and, you know, really take it to the streets, and Trump is trying to do rallies and whatnot.

      And I think it’s just, unfortunately, a big waste of our time. The Dominion machines are here. They’re in place; they’re here to stay. Nobody’s changing it. All the lawsuits that we’re bringing forward, they just keep declining. We have thousands of people, election workers, poll workers that have come forward and said, you know, what they’ve seen. It’s just everything’s declined.

     Dominion is here. They’re not gonna change it, and if we can’t clean up the election in November, it’s really pointless for the January. I think this is a takeover. I really… I know everybody wants to get out there and get their votes in, and I think people are forgetting that these machines are programmable, and they are gonna continue. No matter how many votes come in for Trump.

      No matter how many rallies he does. They’re gonna take the votes, they’re gonna steal seats, and we’re gonna watch it happen because they don’t have any help. We just have Trump, who’s one person, and he has so many people in his own party that aren’t helping. And, you know, I get text messages from the Trump team, you know, about let’s, you know, vote or let’s get out, you know, and rally.

      Unfortunately, the American people like myself and us regular citizens aren’t in any position of authority to do anything. We can take it to the streets, but ultimately these machines are programmable, and if you go and vote, they’re gonna steal the seats anyway. That’s my comment, and I just feel like… I know everybody is upset. We all are. I am. My family is. And Trump says, “Well, I’ll run again in four years.” Well, it ain’t gonna matter if he runs again in four years or not.

RUSH: Why not?

ANGIE: What happened in 2016 when he won and they did not plan on that? They’re never gonna let that happen again, and we’re watching it. And they’re gonna take this election, they’re gonna take the Georgia runoff, and we will never… It will be pointless. I don’t mean to be the Debbie Downer, but I feel like I’m being realistic here.

RUSH: No, no, no. Let me put… So what are you gonna do? I mean, you basically just established a scenario where we are cooked. We’re finished. It’s over. And there’s nothing we can do because there’s no way we can ever win another election.

ANGIE: Correct. I mean, at this point, if our president can’t overturn what has happened with some of these states… If we can’t even go to the Supreme Court, if we can’t even go to the judges, to these courts in these states and present evidence of things that have happened, of things that have been fraudulent and nobody will listen, nobody will look, nobody will do anything?

      A president can’t even do anything! He’s bringing lawsuits, and he’s not gaining any ground. You know. I mean, we’re watching this happen. And Biden didn’t even campaign. Where were his rallies, you know? A couple people here and there. He wasn’t even doing rallies. Trump had the whole country just united and excited and get out and vote, and we did. And it doesn’t matter because these machines are in place.

      And this was the machine that Hugo Chavez said he never wanted to lose another election. And now they’re here. And if we don’t get Trump in the White House, if he can’t get this all overturned and we don’t have him for four more years to remove this Dominion system… Biden’s not gonna remove it. Nobody’s gonna remove it. The virus was sent here from China — you know, on purpose, I believe. This is my belief, and then these machines are in place. They were programmed. We have witnesses. People have risked their lives to come forward.

RUSH: Yeah, I know. We got hundreds of thousands of them.

ANGIE: Yeah, and they’ve come forward with what they’ve seen, and we can’t gain any ground. So I believe it’s a takeover. I think we’re watching it happen.

RUSH: Takeover by who? You’re got 25 seconds. A takeover by who?

ANGIE: By the left. By Biden. By the left. It’s not even Biden. It’s people that we don’t even know behind the scenes.

ANGIE: All right. Okay. Understood. I’m glad you called, Debbie — Debbie Downer. Angie is her name. She’s in Big Lake, Minnesota.

The truth is that more and more Americans think like Angie thinks. They are despondent and without hope. They believe as we all used to believe – that talk is cheap, but voting is free, so our greatest power is taking our sentiments to the polls and voting for the representatives who will best serve us and our country. They believe that America’s best days are long behind her;  they believe that Donald Trump possesses the right mindset to be our president and to act in the country’s best interests and the interests of all its citizens, they believe that America is quickly moving in the wrong direction, and they believe that with Democrats as a powerful political party, we have allowed the federal government and its officials to become the tyrants that prompted our founding generations to separate from England and to put their lives and property on the line to do so.

If voting is to mean anything in our system of government (that is, where citizens have a direct say in their government), we need major voter reform. We need to eliminate fraud and abuse and any possibility of such.  We need manual ballots and mandatory and meaningful voter identification. We should tolerate NO machines and no flabby expansion of voting rules, such as extended early voting, Sunday voting, same-day registration and voting (“One Stop Voting”), and/or mail-in voting without strict conditions (such as, mail-in voting only for military and maybe those who are working or going to school out of the country at election time). We need voting to be that sacred right and duty that it was meant to be.  Samuel Adams said it best: “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” (The Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781). Alexander Hamilton wrote: “A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.”

The Right to Vote is our Power. It is the way we not only have a say in government, but the way we have power over government. Too many people fought very hard to make sure all citizens of all colors, races, ethnicities, genders, and abilities have their right to vote protected in the Constitution and in our laws. The civil protests and riots of the 1960’s, led by men like Martin Luther King Jr., and the suffragette movement, led by women such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, are just two examples of the value human beings place on their right to vote and to have their voice heard equally as with others. The theory of democracy is that in a system based on a government of, for, and by the people, it is the vote, the basic building block, that gives people the power to control their government and to shape what policies they want and the future direction of their town, state, and country. “By voting, we add our voice to the chorus that forms opinions and the basis for actions,” said Jens Stoltenberg

To secure honest and fair elections, we not only protect the right, but we protect the civic power of  the Individual.  Power must vest in the People and NOT a political party. Government has already zapped too much power away from the people, and so the ballot box is really all we have.  Therefore, we need honesty and complete transparency. We need people dedicated to the idea and the grand experiment in individual Liberty that is America.

There is one thing we should never forget…..  Voting is an individual, personal thing. Every reference to the Right to Vote in our Constitution notes that it is an individual right. It is reserved specifically to the person, the individual. The Right to Vote does NOT belong to a political party. Abraham Lincoln said: “Elections belong to the people.” It belongs to the people; not to a political party!!  A political party has no right to coerce  (including offering money) a person to vote for that  party if he /she really has no intention of exercising that right. This is misappropriation. It is nothing more than an attempt to make use of “useless idiots” for the purpose of a political power grab. We saw this clear as day in several elections over the years, but at no time more clearly than this 2020 presidential election. The Right to Vote has been, and continues to be, the main tool in the wheelhouse of the Democratic Party. It has manipulated and misappropriated votes on the one hand (ie, voter and election fraud), and on the other hand, is has denied or at the very least, diluted the votes of others. Every vote fraudulently cast cancels or nullifies the vote of a citizen who has been promised that his or her right is protected and valued. We have a crisis involving our right to vote abs involving our rightful expectation of honest, fair, and transparent elections. Abraham Lincoln once said: “The ballot is stronger than the bullet.”  Isn’t it ironic that the Democrats not only wants to deny us our guns, deny us the right to keep and bear arms – but it also wants to deny those who don’t support their party their due influence at the ballot box.

So, what do we need to fight for our country and to save it from the forces of evil and progressivism?  What do we need to do to prevent election fraud and meaningless citizen participation at the ballot box?  What do we need to do to fight the tyranny that reigns in Washington and especially the halls of Congress?  What do we need to do to end the political entitlement that is the Democratic Party – a party so determined to hold power that it has cheated, rigged elections, taken money from those who actually earn it in order to redistribute it to others, with the intent to buy their votes at election time (making them “more comfortable in their poverty”)?  How do we undo the policies of progressivism that have systematically destroyed the foundations of this country?  How do we end the constant attacks on our Right to exercise Free Speech, our Right of Conscience (defined in the Bill of Right as our Right to freely exercise the teachings of our religion), and our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?  I mean, why do we think we need to wait for men and women in black robes to tell us what our natural and God-given rights are?  

The greatest threats to our republic, and especially its democratic elements of which voting is key, are laziness, comfort, permitting oneself to be ignorant and uninformed, and apathy. Eternal vigilance is the price of eternal freedom.  

We need the energy and the activism of our early revolutionary founders and patriots – patriots such as Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, James Madison, George Mason, and the Sons of Liberty.  There are some great and brilliant activists doing all they can to illuminate the citizenry, to point out the tyranny of government, and to stir them to action, but we need so many more. After signing the Declaration of Independence, president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock proudly proclaimed: “There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!”  Indeed, he was proud to sign his name to that daring declaration by the collective states to declare their independence from England and he didn’t care what consequences should befall him.  It was the first official step to freedom.

In 1775, in a speech to the Second Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry exclaimed: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”  He meant it.  His words were meant to support his resolutions to call up the militia in Virginia and train them to protect them against the actions of the British redcoats. His entire speech spoke about how bad it would be to live in fear of the government and how futile it would be to assert our rights when government has too much power over us: 

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

Prior to 1775, we had the great Samuel Adams, the resounding voice for freedom and leader of the Sons of Liberty in Boston. He organized the Sons of Liberty to oppose unpopular English policies (mostly the excessive taxation without representation and the shutting down of colonial businesses) and to sanction acts of civil disobedience (such as the Boston Tea Party, hanging stamp collectors in effigy, tar and feathering agents of the King enforcing his policies, destroying the products that arrived in Boston Harbor to be forced upon the colonists by the Crown, blocking the ports, burning the houses of those doing the King’s bidding, etc) and even sometimes violent actions when necessary. They were a more militant, direct-action group in contrast to the petitioning and speeches of more moderate figures like John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. [See the Reference provided below for a more comprehensive list of the more active members of the Sons of Liberty and their acts of resistance].  Some say that together with Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams’ most important contribution to America’s cause was that he had “the most thorough understanding of liberty.” (his distant cousin John Adams’ words).  

Samuel Adams said: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them.”  And “The natural liberty of man is…not to be under the will or legislative authority of man.”  It was Adams’ great wish that American children and young adults would always be educated “in the art of self-government” so that future generations would always be capable of “assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which [God] bestowed.” 

We need men and women today with this passion. We need more guardians of individual liberty. We need more citizens to love their country more than they want free stuff and to fight for her founding ideals. We need these citizens to open their minds to the true meaning of liberty and its security and to understand why it is essential that the government remain limited.

Thomas Jefferson was forever the voice of the rights of man. He explained the importance of the popular referendum (right to vote): “The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people. “

Dwight Eisenhower delivered the same message over a century later: “The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”

With Americans today facing far more coercion and enjoying far less freedom to govern themselves than we once had, we need to recover the same devotion to liberty that Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, George Mason, members of the Sons of Liberty, and so many others of our early years had. It is they who should always inspire us in our duty to the country. If progressives succeed in relegating such men to the “shameful racist” annals of American history, then we are lost. Samuel Adams once said: “If ye love the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

That is the question and over-all message I want to leave with this article: “Where are today’s revolutionary patriots?”  


Mike Maharrey, “America Embraces the Tyranny its Founders Fought to Reject,” The Tenth Amendment Center, January 8, 2016.  (Re-posted on December 19, 2020).

Speech Delivered by Patrick Henry at the Virginia Convention Debate of the Ratification of the Constitution, on June 5, 1788 (“Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing – give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else!”).  Referenced at:  https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/

Speech Delivered by Patrick Henry at the Virginia Convention Debate of the Ratification of the Constitution

Patrick Henry on| June 7, 1788 (arguing for the critical need for a Bill of Rights to put absolute limits on the actions of government).  Referenced at:  https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-delivered-at-the-virginia-convention-debate-of-the-ratification-of-the-constitution-june-7-1788/

PODCAST & VIDEO (“Embracing What The Founders Sought to Destroy”) –  Embracing what the Founders Sought to Destroy | | Tenth Amendment Center Blog   OR   https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/12/embracing-what-the-founders-sought-to-destroy/

“She Doesn’t Mean to Be a Debbie Downer, But…,” The Rush Limbaugh Show, December 23, 2020.

Referenced at:  https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/12/23/she-doesnt-mean-to-be-a-debbie-downer-but/

Thomas Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1900), p. 842.  

Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrett, ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), Vol III, pp. 544-545

Patrick Henry’s speech, delivered at Richmond, Virginia – March 23, 1775.  Referenced at:  http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/give_me_liberty_or_give_me_death.htm  

Voices of the Revolution: The Sons of Liberty.  Referenced at:  https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-declaration-of-independence/sons-of-liberty/   

“Raising a Glass to Samuel Adams,” Foundation for Economic Education.  Referenced at:  https://fee.org/articles/raising-a-glass-to-sam-adams-18-choice-quotes-on-liberty/   [September 27 marks the anniversary of the birth of the Sons of Liberty].

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Are We Not Supposed to Take “Jealous Care” of Our Right to Vote and to Make Absolutely Sure That Each Citizen’s Vote Counts Equally?

by Diane Rufino

The year 2020 is the year of election interference and election tampering. No other presidential election (aside from the election of 1960 between Nixon and John F. Kennedy) has been fraught with such intentional, deliberate, anti-American, unconstitutional, and treasonous activities. The goal, of course, was to minimize the votes of conservatives, stack votes (illegally, fraudulently) for Joe Biden, and, ultimately to pre-determine the winning candidate and outcome of the election. In short, it was a political coup to remove Donald Trump. The data and information, as well as first-hand accounts and affidavits, that was made known before and has been made known since, show there was election fraud, illegalities, and material irregularities in the Presidential election, and without a doubt evidence a common plan or conspiracy to violate the Constitution and disenfranchise over 73 million Americans of their votes for President.

The right to vote is at the core of our American system of government. It is addressed in the Declaration of Independence and has been the topic of much concern and warning by our Founding Fathers.  We are a republic, yes, but the beauty is that our republic includes certain democratic elements, such as the right of the people to vote – to have a direct say in their government, in how legislators make law and who should be the chief executive (ie, our President).  The power of the people, as we all know, is at the ballot box. How many times have we heard “The people have the chance to change the things in government  they don’t like at the ballot box.”  But the reality is that we don’t any more.  The election of 2020 proves that. The reality now is that our government, which has become so very powerful and has so many instruments, offices, options, and unholy alliances at its disposal can derail an election from the People. It can manipulate and, as we have seen, pre-determine the outcome. The same with the all-powerful and all-corrupt Democratic Party. The Party has become a source of immense and dangerous power.

The Right to Vote is so sacred and so essential and critical to the system established at our creation by the wisest and most well-meaning of freedom-seekers that the Supreme Court has come up with a bright line rule – “ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.”  It is this unshakable principle that guided the ruling in Bush v. Gore (2000).  In other words, every citizen is equal at the ballot box in our country. Every person’s vote counts equal. No person’s vote counts more than another’s.

All our Founding Fathers (especially those who served as president) addressed the sanctity of our Right to Vote. For example, in his Inaugural Address, President Thomas Jefferson offered these important remarks:

“Let us, with courage and confidence, pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government. Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradation of the others; possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendant to the thousandth and thousandth generation; entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow citizens, resulting not from birth but from our actions and their sense of them; enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed and practiced in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter – with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens…. a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another , shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. 

About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations:  Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government (federal government) in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people – a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of person under the protection of habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”

Americans need faith in our election system; they need to know that their vote counts. Most work, pay taxes, own property, have a house, maybe own a small business, and try to invest for their children’s college and their own future; they need to have faith in the system because government touches directly on their lives, their property, the salary they work honestly for, and their pursuit of happiness. Americans lose faith in our democratic processes and become highly skeptical when the election process is manipulated, undermined, and compromised, as well as when the voting and ballot integrity systems themselves have become corrupt.

Taking all this into account, I am shocked that more people aren’t enraged over the current tactics of voter fraud and more onerous, election fraud by the Democratic Party and even by foreign actors. We are supposed to take “jealous care” of our right to vote and our right to have our votes count equally with other voters – not less. I mean, the tactics the Democrats planned and took in the 2020 election were to the point of unconscionable. The illegalities and material irregularities were extraordinary in that they were done in ways that exceeded what Americans could have imagined. The fraud and irregularities were on a scale that was simply mind-boggling.  

The outright election manipulation and voter fraud that occurred in this year’s presidential election include the following: 

  • Even presuming the best of intentions, the legality and integrity of the electoral process was contaminated before the vote by mailing unsolicited mail-in ballots in violation of the will of the people as expressed by state legislatures through laws governing the process;
  • Signature verification procedures of mail-in ballots were ignored or kept hidden from election integrity monitors;
  • There were instances of drop-off boxes of ballots, after the close of polling sites;
  • It has been demonstrated, by a forensic audit, that Dominion software has the capability of intentional manipulation of vote selection, and in fact voted were switched from Donald Trump to Joe Biden;
  • In unprecedented lockstep, certain states stopped counting votes, sending home election monitors, and thereby increasing the opportunities for voter fraud;
  • In many states, there were precincts where the numbers of ballots received and counted far exceeded the number of registered (and living) voters;
  • The Dominion voting machines have Software with internal parts produced in China. The allowable error rate established by the federal government is .0008% but in Antrum County Michigan a forensic analysis revealed a 68.05% error rate and 6,000 votes were switched, by the tabulator, from President Trump to Joe Biden. Now Clark County Nevada has reported an error rate of approximately 70%. The theft in one county in each of those states gives us an idea of the scope of this fraud. In Georgia there is video evidence of cheating by election workers that entered batches of ballots multiple times that were all marked for Joe Biden;
  • Signature verification procedures of mail-in ballots were ignored or kept hidden from election integrity monitors;
  • There were after-hours deposits of secretive ballot boxes dropped off at polling locations, to be certified by poll workers to chose to remain for that purpose;  these boxes contained forged ballots;
  • It has been demonstrated and shown that Dominion software was manipulated to switch votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden;
  • A man who’s made a living developing fraud detection algorithms has discovered a curious phenomenon: Counties that started using Dominion Voting Systems machines have on average moved by 2 to 3 points to the Democrat presidential candidate from the Republican compared to counties that didn’t adopt the machines. This man is Ben Turner.  He documented that the difference persisted even after he controlled for a number of factors, including county population and various demographic characteristics. In light of such irregularities and potential for vote manipulation, Turner recommended that the machines be audited from time to time. Ben Turner used to be the chief actuary at Texas Mutual Workers’ Compensation Insurance. He now runs Fraud Spotters, a consultancy specializing in detecting insurance fraud;
  • Again, even presuming the best intentions (a far stretch, of course), thanks to the mainly Democratic majority or strongarm of state legislatures and the laws they insisted on being passed governing the election process, the legality and integrity of the electoral process was contaminated before the vote by mailing out unsolicited mail-in ballots in violation of the will of the people.
  • The level of fraud in Georgia Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada should be enough to prevent Joe Biden from entering the White House;
  • For all intents and purposes, Joe Biden and his family are bought and paid for by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP is a participant in entire process of our election system, from the machines to the mail-ballots, and even including paying the workers that are counting the ballots. The drop boxes were financed by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame who is also a CCP stooge as is Jack Dorsey of Twitter;
  • There is a problem of covert Chinese operatives in our country. The covert infiltration of CCP operatives into our country was exposed this week by a hacker in Australia. A list of approximately 2 million Communist Chinese loyalists that are embedded in every aspect of life worldwide. It is reported that there are 57,000 in the United States but most likely many more since we are the most coveted possession of the CCP. They are stealing our most closely held and important secrets from national security to intellectual property and have been doing so for many decades. It was a brilliant plan because of our naturally inclusive society. They have used our best qualities against us in an effort to conquer us. That is the purest form of evil. 

More irregularities and fraudulent schemes can be mentioned, no doubt. Yet it is crystal clear and unquestionable that there was an unprecedented level of election fraud (intentional, planned, designed) illegalities, and material irregularities in the 2020 Presidential election..  and as such over 73 million Americans had their votes cancelled and their voices silenced. 73 million American citizens were disenfranchised. This happened in key Democratic states and in key Democratic localities. This coordinated and premeditated effort to steal the Presidency must be the biggest scandal in American history and certainly the most consequential criminal conspiracy. 

We value our right to vote as one of our most important duties as an American. We were gifted a real gem – a republic where freedom rings.  Liberty for all. But it won’t remain so much longer unless we are all willing, at each election time, to vote responsibly for the good of our republic and the longevity of our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our longstanding principles. In fact, President Ronald Reagan gave us this warning: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

How important is it that each person have a vote and is able to cast it?  And how important is it that each person’s vote counts equally to the next person?  (ie, all citizens’ votes carry equal weight).  Well, in the case of Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983), the US Supreme Court recognized that “in the context of a Presidential election, the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.”  The Court has long held this view.  In 1974, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the majority opinion in the case Anderson v. United States and asserted that the federal criminal statute 18 U.S.C. §241 (“Conspiracy Against Rights”) applies to voter fraud cases.  In that opinion, Marshall said that the “injury” under §241 is the dilution of votes. He wrote:

        “It has long been settled that §241 embraces a conspiracy to stuff the ballot box at an election for federal officers, and thereby to dilute the value of votes of qualified voters….   That petitioners may have had no purpose to change the outcome of the federal election is irrelevant. The specific intent required under §241 is not the intent to change the outcome of a federal election, but rather the intent to have false votes cast and thereby to injure the right of all voters in a federal election to express their choice for a particular candidate and to have their expressions of choice given full value and effect, without being diluted or distorted by the casting of fraudulent ballots….  The deposit of forged ballots in the ballot boxes, no matter how small or great their number, dilutes the influence of honest votes in an election, and whether in greater or less degree is immaterial. The right to an honest (count) is a right possessed by each voting elector, and to the extent that the importance of his vote is nullified, wholly or in part, he has been injured in the free exercise of a right or privilege secured to him by the laws and the Constitution of the United States.”   

The result of all the tampering, irregularities, the software manipulation, the fake votes, repeat voters, dead voters, switched votes, pre-prepared drop off box of ballots, the highly probability of voter fraud with the massive mail-in vote initiative by Democrats (such fraud has been shown repeatedly yet Democrats continue to push for it), the counting of ballots in secret, the questionable drop-off boxes of forged ballots, and the allowing of non-citizens to vote all result in a dilution of the vote of good, ordinary, law-abiding American citizens – the ones who have the most to gain by having their voice heard at the ballot box.

Top attorneys are reviewing the election results and investigators such as James OKeefe keep digging. I personally have not one shred of confidence in this year’s presidential election results. I don’t believe we can honestly, truthfully, and dutifully elect a new president based on such shameful, devious and ambitious shenanigans. I know I would have the hardest of times playing income tax to such a government and obeying its laws. An illegitimate president nullifies our allegiance to the government. 

I recently read the remarks of Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and was disheartened, to be honest, that of all the tampering and irregularities and scheming and premeditated election interference by self-professed political royalty and a dangerously-motivated political party in this year’s presidential election, and the very possible political coup that may result from such tampering and interference and scheming, he chose instead to focus on the “malign foreign influence” in the election. Rosen essentially ignored the overwhelming, the shocking, and the unconscionable tactics of the Democratic party in this election and focused instead on something that seems a bit more benign and something we Americans have lived with for many years. Yet he brings up some excellent points. And for that reason, I want to highlight his remarks:

Remarks of Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, delivered August 26, 2020:

One thing that has not been much noted in recent years is that malign foreign influence in our elections has been a concern since the Founding of our Republic. 

Going all the way back in 1787, when the Founders were debating the merits of “our new Constitution,” Thomas Jefferson told John Adams that he was “apprehensive of foreign interference, intrigue, influence.”  Adams too worried that “as often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs.”  Nine years later, the two squared off in the first contested presidential election in American history.

The election of 1796 occurred while Britain and revolutionary France were locked in war.  Adams favored the Washington Administration’s pro-British trade policy, while Jefferson favored the French Republic.  A few months before the election, in his famous farewell address, President George Washington issued a stern public warning: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake ….”

Nonetheless, France tried to exert its influence.  The French minister to the United States, Pierre-Auguste Adet, told his superiors that he could “get out the vote for a man devoted to France.”  He suggested that France should “adopt measures that will cause the merchants to fear for their property, and to make them see the need to place at the head of the government a man whose known character would inspire confidence in the [French] Republic.”  On the eve of the election, Adet sent the U.S. Secretary of State a series of letters effectively threatening that France would begin to seize American merchant ships and trigger war unless Jefferson were elected.  Adet had them published in the Philadelphia Aurora, one of the most widely circulated and partisan newspapers of the era.

Adams did not forget the risk that France’s attempted coercion posed.  In his inaugural address, he implored the American people never to “lose sight of the danger” that foreign influence, whether “by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality,” presents to our “free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.”  The next year, Jefferson, too, objected to France’s continuing coercive efforts to stir up American partisanship, telling Madison that the efforts were “very unworthy of a great nation.”  He felt that they contributed to a mistaken presumption that Jefferson’s supporters’ “first passion” was “an attachment to France, and hatred to” Adams’s party, rather than what American voters’ passion really was: “the love of their country.”

Since the twentieth century, as the United States evolved into a superpower, malign foreign influence has been less about coercion and more about deceptive or covert efforts, meaning that the foreign government has tried to disguise or conceal its role.  In the 1930s, Nazi Germany directed an extensive underground effort to influence U.S. public opinion.  One German agent, for example, entered the United States claiming to be a clergyman and used Nazi funds to take over small, established newspapers and civic organizations until he was indicted for failing to register as a foreign agent and fled the country as a fugitive.  Congress responded to these and similar activities by enacting the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1938, which requires disclosure of foreign influence activities.  The Justice Department successfully prosecuted some of Germany’s “most useful American agents” who tried to hide their activities.

Germany also targeted U.S. elections, including the 1940 election, which occurred while World War II raged in Europe.  Nazi leaders viewed President Franklin Roosevelt as pro-British and interventionist,  so they employed several “schemes for influencing the outcome of our 1940 Presidential election, as well as the platforms of both major political parties.”

One scheme entailed forging documents and fabricating stories that they hoped would capture the American public’s attention.  In March 1940, the Nazis released diplomatic documents they had supposedly recovered from the Polish Foreign Office’s archives when they captured Warsaw.  The documents purportedly showed that the Roosevelt Administration had promised aid to Poland before the war and assured Poland that the United States would “finish” any war on the Allies’ side.  Germany’s top diplomat in the United States, Hans Thomsen, called the documents a “bombshell,” and two members of Congress demanded a congressional investigation.  But most members of Congress and even the American press were more circumspect; they largely followed the advice that President Roosevelt gave when the story broke “to take all European propaganda at this time with a grain of salt,” which he immediately amended “to stretch it to two and then three grains.”  In the days before the 1940 election, Germany tried to plant another fabricated story claiming evidence that Roosevelt had long been planning to intervene in Europe even before 1939, but no mainstream newspaper would take the bait.

After World War II, the Cold War produced a whole new set of challenges from malign foreign influence.  The Soviet Union employed covert or deceptive tactics as part of its so-called “active measures,” a phrase it used to describe malign influence activities like disseminating forgeries, disinformation, and propaganda and sponsoring front publications to undermine American interests.  Most active measures were directed abroad, such as when, just a few weeks before the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, the KGB mailed athletes from Africa forged letters supposedly from the Ku Klux Klan with threats against them, or when the Soviets published stories in dozens of Soviet-controlled publications around the world claiming that the AIDS epidemic was started by U.S. military experiments.  But the Soviets also used active measures to undermine public confidence or influence public opinion in the United States, including covertly forging documents and funding conspiracy-mongering books that supposedly tied the FBI and CIA to President Kennedy’s assassination or tied FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Ku Klux Klan.

The Soviet Union also targeted U.S. elections.  For example, during the 1976 Democratic primary, the KGB adopted a wide-ranging set of active measures to disparage Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a known anti-Soviet hawk, by instructing their agents to use confidential contacts to find “dark spots” in Jackson’s background.  When they did not turn up much, the Soviets sent a forged FBI memorandum dated June 20, 1940 to the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign purportedly concluding that Jackson was secretly gay.  Neither the journalists nor the Carter campaign published the phony document.

After the 1980 election, Soviet leaders soon grew to loathe and fear President Reagan’s administration, according to an ex-KGB defector, and they ordered the KGB to weaken his 1984 reelection bid.  Intending to discredit President Reagan by portraying him as a McCarthyite, Soviet agents covertly sent American journalists a forged letter, dated October 15, 1947, supposedly from J. Edgar Hoover, that purportedly showed Reagan colluding with the FBI to root out Communists in Hollywood.  The FBI publicly denounced the document when it surfaced in January 1984, explaining that it contained stylistic touches that Hoover would not have tolerated and violated rules for FBI correspondence.   Soviet agents also covertly tried to develop contacts at the Republican and Democratic national party committees to find ways to subvert President Reagan’s campaign.  In addition, they developed a package of narratives to disseminate about President Reagan, trying to portray him as a corrupt warmonger who was subservient to the military-industrial complex and responsible for tensions with NATO allies.  But all of the Soviets’ efforts failed, and President Reagan was re-elected.

Now let me turn to corrupt measures to influence elections.  One attempt was apparently made in 1968, when, according to, the Soviet ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Dobrynin,  “the top Soviet leaders took an extraordinary step, unprecedented in the history of Soviet-American relations,” and ordered him to offer Vice President and Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey’s campaign secret financial aid. But when Dobrynin asked Humphrey about his campaign’s financial state, Humphrey replied that it “was more than enough for him to have Moscow’s good wishes,” and Dobrynin did not formally convey the offer.  Six years later, Congress made it illegal for foreign nationals to make campaign contributions.

By the mid-1990’s, that again became important when the People’s Republic of China (PRC), “undertook a covert program to influence the U.S. political process through political donations, and other means, during the 1996 election cycle.”  Over Beijing’s strenuous objection, Taiwan’s President was granted a visa in 1995 to speak at his alma mater, Cornell University, after Congress passed resolutions supporting the trip.  The PRC then implemented a plan to influence the U.S. political process to be more favorable toward pro-Beijing policies by making campaign donations through middlemen who could provide access to, and seek to influence, candidates and elected officials at all levels of government.  The Justice Department prosecuted a number of the middlemen who were involved, and a 1999 Congressional report identified the PRC conduct as “a serious threat to our national security.”

And with regard to the 2016 election,  just last week some declassified FBI documents were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which indicate that the Clinton campaign was warned about efforts of a foreign government to influence her through campaign contributions that “may come in a form outside established parameters for such contributions.”  The threat of corrupt malign influence activities requires continued vigilance.

So malign foreign influence efforts in our elections has been a perennial problem.  But though the general threat isn’t novel, some of the challenges we’re facing now are different.  As President Trump put it in Executive Order 13848: “In recent years, the proliferation of digital devices and internet-based communications has created significant vulnerabilities and magnified the scope and intensity…”

Historically, malign influence operations were often limited by their reliance on third parties, such as mainstream news outlets or popular magazines, to reach sizeable segments of the American public.  For much of our history, the media were cautious about being used in this way.  For example, many American journalists wrote exposés about Nazi propaganda in the United States and, at least by 1940, the press was largely “immune” to it.  Decades later, the FBI told Congress in 1986 that “[t]he American media is sophisticated, and generally recognizes Soviet influence attempts.”  But today, the media environment is considerably different, and the internet and social media also allow foreign actors to reach unprecedented numbers of Americans covertly, inexpensively, and directly, without ever setting foot on U.S. soil.  We are all now familiar with the findings that, in the 2016 election cycle, the Russian Internet Research Agency “spent a total of about $100,000 over two years on advertisements” on Facebook to promote social discord and division, and similarly placed disguised posts and tweets on several social media platforms.

While the tools of malign influence have proliferated, foreign governments such as Russia and China have also become more sophisticated and more bold.  Back in 1986, the FBI told Congress that Soviet active measures had relatively little success in the United States because they were “often transparent and sometimes clumsily implemented.”  Forged government documents, for instance, could be exposed.  But the arsenal of modern malign influence — like impersonating Americans on social media platforms, or manipulating digital content through “deep fakes” — can be more difficult to detect and counter. 

As to boldness, as the FBI Director has recently pointed out, the PRC has been “engaged in a highly sophisticated malign foreign influence campaign,” using bribery, blackmail, and other malign tactics to influence our year-round policymaking, which certainly has implications for our elections.  Beijing’s corrupt methods are not always as blatant as its illegal campaign financing was in 1996; PRC tactics are more subtly pernicious and complex.  Beijing, for example, works relentlessly to co-opt seemingly independent middlemen who can influence members of Congress on a host of policies.

What is being done about all these malign foreign influence efforts?  Rest assured, as this old problem takes on new looks, the Department of Justice has been responding to these challenges with our own tools.  I’ll mention five of them.

First, the FBI has established a Foreign Influence Task Force that brings together cross-disciplinary and cross-regional expertise, encompassing counterintelligence, cyber, criminal, and even counterterrorism agents and analysts who investigate and counter malign influence by China, Russia, Iran, and other foreign actors.

Second, the Department of Justice has been assisting social media companies, campaigns, and election officials in hardening their platforms, networks, and infrastructure against these threats, and has been providing them with defensive counterintelligence briefings and  steps they can undertake to reduce their vulnerabilities.

Third, the Department of Justice has strengthened compliance efforts for the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, in order to identify and expose malign foreign influence.  FARA helps to ensure transparency by requiring persons who engage in certain foreign influence-related activities to register with the department and publicly disclose those activities.  It doesn’t prohibit any speech, but instead enhances the public’s and the government’s ability to evaluate foreign influence-related speech by ensuring that the source is clear.

Fourth, where malign foreign influence operations violate our federal laws, as with hacking of email systems to make their contents public, these department of Justice has brought criminal charges.  The department remains prepared to bring criminal charges where they are warranted.

Fifth, the department has supported the Administration’s broader efforts to counter malign foreign influence.  For example, the Administration has imposed financial sanctions for Russian efforts to sow discord in connection with the 2016 election, and imposed further sanctions in the last twelve months for Russia’s additional influence operations since then.  In short, the Justice Department and our colleagues in government have been adapting to foreign actors’ malign activities—and actively combatting and defending against them.

At this point, I want to touch briefly on the current threat landscape as we head toward Election Day.  The department of Justice, DHS, and other federal agencies, have engaged in an unprecedented level of coordination with and support to all 50 states and numerous local officials to ensure that their election infrastructure is secure.  We have yet to see any activity intended to prevent voting or to change votes, and we continue to think that it would be extraordinarily difficult for foreign adversaries to change vote tallies.

We do, however, continue to see malign foreign influence efforts relevant to the 2020 presidential election.  Some foreign actors are covertly trying to undermine confidence in our elections because they are authoritarian governments opposed to representative democracy.  As the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) recently made public on August 7, some foreign governments have preferences about our election — and have taken or planned malign activities in support of their preferences — including efforts by China and Iran to undermine President Trump and his Administration’s policies and efforts by Russia to undermine former Vice President Biden.  The Intelligence Community, including the FBI, have briefed Congress, as well as both presidential campaigns, about these threats.  ODNI also has also taken unprecedented steps to educate the public about these threats to “better inform Americans so they can play a critical role in safeguarding our election.”

We are working to counter all of these influence activities.  But it is important to remember that there are times when drawing attention to the threats can be precisely what the bad actors want, to generate concern and distrust, division and discord.  And as Americans, we need to avoid the temptation to seek political advantage from the revelation of influence activities that were meant to divide us.

Instead, the right response is for our electorate to be knowledgeable and careful about the sources of information they rely on, to look for accurate information, to inform themselves about the candidates, and to cast their ballots accordingly.  In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.”  So let me offer some final thoughts about what the historical records tells us that Americans can do to protect ourselves from the malign influence efforts of foreign governments, in addition to the strong measures being taken by the Justice Department and other government agencies.       

We are given some advice from our predecessors. First, we all need to be aware that malign foreign influence efforts have always existed and they still do.  It’s one of the warnings that President George Washington shared when he counseled Americans that “against the insidious wiles of foreign influence … the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake.”

Second, this means we should not take information from foreign governments or questionable sources at face value.  Information from countries or regions that have a history of propaganda, should be taken with “a grain of salt,” if not “two and then three grains,” as President Franklin Roosevelt said.  We’ve been warning the public that “some foreign governments” have a track record of spreading fabricated stories, disinformation, and propaganda to try to shape voter perceptions, and the Intelligence Community continues to share information about what those governments are doing in 2020.  All Americans can control what information they rely on and can exercise care by evaluating that information with a critical eye.

Finally, while we must remain vigilant, Americans should not be deterred from participating in elections by concerns of malign foreign influence efforts.  All Americans, in the end, can control who they vote for. Foreign propaganda and other influence activities have been concerns since the founding of our Republic, but they are challenges that we’ve been successfully navigating for more than two hundred years.  The measures I’ve outlined today can help us to do so once again this year.

Diane Rufino


Remarks of Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen:  https//www.justice.gov/opa/speech/remarks-deputy-attorney-general-jeffrey-rosen-malign-foreign-influence-us-elections

The First Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson (March 1, 1801).  Referenced at:   http//founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-33-02-0116-0004                                       

PETITION: Demand Legal Action On Election Fraud (also titled: “Petition To Remedy Voter Disenfranchisement Caused By Electoral Corruption In 2020”), Tom DeWeese and The American Policy Center (www.americanpolicy.org) –   https://americanpolicy.org/archive/     OR      https://americanpolicy.org/2020/11/25/demand-legal-action-on-election-fraud/      [NOTE:  I have referenced the research and conclusions made by Tom DeWeese and the American Policy Center in the section above on the various examples of fraud and voter/election irregularities and on the section citing the Supreme Court case Anderson v. Celebrezze and the case Anderson v. United States (with the brilliant passage from Justice Thurgood Marshall)].   

Connie Hannah, “The Trump Card Report,” The County Compass, week of Dec, 24-29, 2020    [Connie writes a regular column grading President Trump on his performance for the particular week. She has provided me with information as to evidence of election fraud].

Peter Svab, “Fraud Analyst Finds Average of 2 to 3 Percent Shift for Biden in Counties That Used Dominion,” The Epoch Times, Dec. 25, 2020.  Reference at:  Fraud Analyst Finds Average of 2 to 3 Percent Shift for Biden in Counties That Used Dominion (theepochtimes.com)       

Anderson v. Celebrezze, 40 U.S. 780 (1983)   

Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211 (1974)

18 U.S.C. §241 (“Conspiracy Against Rights”) –  [USC02] 18 USC 241: Conspiracy against rights (house.gov)     OR   https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section241&num=0&edition=prelim  

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

RESOLUTION: The RIGHT TO VOTE is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NOT the Right of a Political Party

MEME - (cartoon) The Right to Vote

(Photo comes from Cagelcartoons.com)

The following Model Resolution was written by Diane Rufino:

The RIGHT TO VOTE is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NOT the Right of a Political Party:

WHEREAS, for years, we have listened to and read about persons and groups of persons who claim that their right to vote has been disenfranchised. But if we are being intellectually and constitutionally honest, shouldn’t we first ask – ‘Do we have the inalienable RIGHT to vote in the first place?’  and

WHEREAS, our founding generations predicated the right to vote on a few things: (1) being white, (2) male, and (3) owning land, which our founding leaders concluded fulfilled the necessary requirements to have “skin in the game” and thus being able to vote (Sadly, those requirements only permitted 6% of the persons in the united States at the time to vote);  and

WHEREAS, the US Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights in state constitutions do not grant individuals rights but rather list/ recognize them to promise them that government will NOT deny, take away, or otherwise burden or infringe on them;  and

WHEREAS, after the Civil War and the changed “citizen body” (ie, body politic) and then the suffragette movement, the Constitution provided special protection to certain groups (first African-Americans, following the 13th amendment or abolition of slavery, and then women) to ensure that they could not be denied the right to vote;  and

WHEREAS, the right to vote is something that most Americans hold as sacred (but almost completely do not understand). But the Constitution is quite clear on the matter: although the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments (African-Americans, women, and 18 and 19-year-olds can vote, respectively) say voting rights can no longer be limited based on race, color, prior status as a slave, sex, or age, none of these amendments affirmatively state that a citizen of this country has the absolute right to vote;  and

WHEREAS, in the 2001 Bush v. Gore decision, the Supreme Court insisted that there is “no federal constitutional right to vote” but that we have only “the voting privileges our states choose to grant us.” In that case, the Judge said, “if the Florida Legislature wishes to select presidential electors without public input, the people shall not stand in the way.”  And

WHEREAS, since the ratification of the US Constitution, the document has been amended several times to protect the voting rights of African Americans and women, and to extend the right to vote to those citizens who are 18- to 20-years-old. Each of those amendments took decades of strife and protest to adopt and then implement, yet even now, the language of the Constitution does not provide an affirmative, unassailable guarantee that all US citizens of legal voting age will be able to vote;  and

WHEREAS, states have the individual responsibility to clean up and maintain updated voter rolls. Pursuant to this obligation, voter purges are often used as the most reasonable option. Yet, they can be, as the Brennan Center for Justice claims, a flawed process because names can be inadvertently deleted, thus preventing eligible people from casting a meaningful ballot (Brennan Center’s words);  and

WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) MUST petition the US Congress to pass a federal bill proposing to amend the US Constitution affirmatively and unassailably by recognizing the inalienable right of the People, as an INDIVIDUAL, to vote in federal elections (primary and action);  and

HEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly MUST pass a bill to amend the state constitution to affirmatively and unassailably recognize the inalienable INDIVIDUAL right of the People to vote in state and local elections;  and

WHEREAS, any reform proposed by the state to fix any problem with election integrity, especially Voter ID, will NOT be entangled or even perceived to be entangled with partisan battles for political power or dominance.

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that most Americans believe that honest voting is a cornerstone of our national identity and a cornerstone to the individual freedom that is secured in this country, and that political parties have far too much power and influence in our country and their greed and ambition are dangerous to said liberties. Such greed and ambition shall NOT be tolerated in any way, shape, or form;  and

BE IT RESOLVED that the Right to Vote SHOULD BE and MUST BE AFFIRMATIVELY recognized in the US Constitution and in each State constitution as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT;  and

BE IT RESOLVED that the Right to Vote is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT ONLY and NOT at all a right to be exercised or urged by any political party;  and

BE IT RESOLVED that ALL persons have a natural and inalienable right to vote for the representatives in their (federal and state) government and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with said right. The Right to Vote is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to be exercised ONLY by an individual and no political party or secret political party, no political party officer, member, and no government entity may force or otherwise urge an individual to register and/ or to vote;  and

BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina General Assembly will petition the US Congress to pass a federal bill proposing to amend the US Constitution affirmatively and unassailably by recognizing the inalienable right of the People, as an INDIVIDUAL, to vote in federal elections (primary and action). The language recommended will be: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States”;  and

BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina General Assembly will pass a bill to amend the state constitution to affirmatively and unassailably recognize the inalienable INDIVIDUAL right of the People to vote in state and local elections. The language recommended is:  The right of citizens of the State of North Carolina to vote in any primary or other state or local election shall not be denied or abridged by any member of government or law enforcement or other official”;  and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that violations of this resolution (amendment) will automatically be subject to fines and jail time. The legislature shall pass any and all laws to protect and enforce the individual’s right to vote and to prevent interference and coercion by political parties and by government officials.



North Carolina State Constitution –  https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Constitution/NCConstitution.html

Caleb Gayle, “Think the Constitution Guarantees Your Right to Vote? Think Again,” Boston Globe, January 1, 2020.  Referenced at:  https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/01/opinion/think-constitution-guarantees-your-right-vote-think-again/

Kevin Morris and Myrna Perez, “Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote, Brennan Center for Justice, July 20, 2018.  Referenced at:


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

MODEL RESOLUTION Recognizing that a Baby Born Following a Botched Abortion Procedure has the Same Rights as Any Other Baby Born Alive

RIGHT TO LIFE - Everyone has the Right to Life


by Diane Rufino, 2019

“Within the last 20 years, we have found to be covered by Due Process the right to abortion, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years; the right to homosexual sodomy, which was so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that it was criminal for 200 years. So it is literally true, and I don’t think this is an exaggeration, that the Court has essentially liberated itself from the text of the Constitution and even from the traditions of the American people.” [Justice Antonin Scalia, in an interview]

PURPOSE:  Mother Teresa once said: “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a woman can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” The sad reality in our society today is that a baby born following an abortion is NOT valued the same as a baby that is wanted by its mother. Although it would seem only fair and right that all babies born alive be treated the same, have equal access to healthcare professionals, and be provided the same level of care, the truth is that they are not. A baby unwanted by its mother apparently is doomed to carry that rejection with it even through the horrible ordeal of an abortion procedure and then as it lays helpless on a medical table. A baby born alive following a botched abortion procedure did not ask to be created and we all too often forget that. In the case where mercy has allowed the poor unwanted, unloved baby to survive, we MUST recognize that it is still a creation of God and we must accept it into our community of loving, caring human beings. This Resolution addresses that baby’s humanity and it’s right to life and to the Equal Application and Equal Protection of our Constitution and our laws.

The sad reality in our society today is that a baby born following an abortion is NOT valued the same as a baby that is wanted by its mother. Although it would seem only fair and right that all babies born alive be treated the same, have equal access to healthcare professionals, and be provided the same level of care, the truth is that they are not. A baby unwanted by its mother apparently is doomed to carry that rejection with it even through the horrible ordeal of an abortion procedure and then as it lays helpless on a medical table. A baby born alive following a botched abortion procedure did not ask to be created and we all too often forget that. In the case where mercy has allowed the poor unwanted, unloved baby to survive, we MUST recognize that it is still a creation of God and we must accept it into our community of loving, caring human beings. This Resolution addresses that baby’s humanity and it’s right to life and to the Equal Application and Equal Protection of our Constitution and our laws.

Whereas, when a woman goes to her OBGYN to confirm her pregnancy, to hopefully see an ultrasound, and to hopefully even hear a heartbeat, the resounding view is that “a new human life has been created”;

Whereas, a woman who values life, even at the earliest stage of pregnancy, sees herself as carrying a “baby” while a woman who doesn’t want anything in her womb sees that same situation as nothing more than a mass of unwanted cells;

Whereas, history is replete with situations where one group of human beings degrades and diminishes other groups of human beings, thus making it easy to then discriminate against them, subjugate them, and even to dispose of them;

Whereas, the right to an abortion was articulated by the Supreme Court in 1973, in the infamous case, Roe v. Wade which addressed a challenge to a Texas statue criminalizing abortion. Roe’s attorneys argued that women have a right to an abortion under her right to privacy, including her right to control her reproductive health and to determine when to reproduce. [Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)];

Whereas, the Court has recognized that a general right of personal privacy does not exist under the Constitution, but inferred that certain zones of privacy can be found in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (‘the roots of that right’). The Supreme Court articulated this point in the case Griswold v Connecticut; (1965) which involved a challenge to a Connecticut criminal statute that prohibited married couples from using contraceptives and made their doctors liable for aiding and abetting; [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)];

Whereas, the Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the inherent right of privacy (which the Court articulated in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut) was broad enough to include the right of a woman to control her fertility and her ability to reproduce (ie, to control what happens with and inside her womb). In other words, the Court concluded that a woman’s right to an abortion was a fundamental right. Conservative members of the Court dissented strongly to this ruling and some have lumped it with Griswold as the worst, most progressive opinions handed down by the majority;;

Whereas, until the decision in Roe v Wade, women in the United States did not have a constitutional right to an abortion. Rather, each state had the ability to regulate abortion within its borders, as they had done throughout their history. The US Congress could not enact abortion legislation because the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to do so (it was not yet a recognized right);

Whereas, Roe v Wade reached the Supreme Court as part of a growing movement in the US to recognize and liberalize abortion law; arguments in favor of abortion rights centered on women’s equality, equality in the workplace, public health, overpopulation, sexual freedom, and feminism;

Whereas, the opinion in Roe was based upon what abortion advocates wanted women to be able to do. And the country soon found out what women were capable of, with respect to the unborn. They sought abortions to terminate the life of the unborn they either found too inconvenient to continue carrying or they didn’t want to care for when born, they proudly march and carry signs to attest to the joy of being “free” from an unwanted pregnancy, and now they applaud and rejoice whenever a bill is passed in a state house to expand the right to include abortions up until birth;

Whereas, abortion rights have had certain horrific and unconscionable of unintended consequences, including the offending of our national conscience, alienating our country from the protection of God, the suffering of clinic workers (what they are forced to witness), the suffering (psychologically and emotionally) of the women who abort their babies, and the death of countless innocent lives;

Whereas, the recent passage of “late-term abortion” laws in several states, removing state interests in preserving the pregnancy up until delivery, has shocked our national conscience and has caused society to renew its discussion and debate on abortion and what rights do women actually have or what rights they actually should have;

Whereas, the Court went out of its way not to refer to the unborn fetus as ‘a “person” because to do so would bring the unborn under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment [“…. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”];

Whereas, the Court acknowledged that the Constitution provides no definition of “person” or “personhood” and then came to its own conclusion that “person’ was used in the Amendment in a way that suggested that it did not include the unborn – that it referred to someone outside the womb, able to walk around….”;

Whereas, the Court ignored historical precedent, especially at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, that “personhood” and “life” were considered synonymous; and that a fetus was considered a “life” or a “person” per the very wording of various state abortion statues (criminal statutes) at the time of “quickening” or earlier;

Whereas, in fact, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the individual states widely recognized children in utero as persons. Nearly every state had criminal laws proscribing abortion, and most of these statutes were classified among ‘offenses against the person.’ (it is clear that the word ‘person’ referred to the fetus”);

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, twenty‐three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a ‘child’ in their statutes proscribing abortion;

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, nine of the ratifying states explicitly valued the lives of the preborn and their pregnant mothers equally by providing the same range of punishment for killing either during the commission of an abortion;

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, ten states (nine of which had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment) considered abortion to be either manslaughter, assault with intent to murder, or murder (a murder or manslaughter charge legally requires the victim to be considered a “person”);

Whereas, the only plausible explanation for the state laws and policies above is that the legislatures considered the mother and child to be equal in their personhood;

Whereas, layman’s dictionaries at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment treated the concepts of humanity and personhood interchangeably. (That is “life” = “personhood”);

Whereas, a look back through history shows that there were no laws to specifically protect the unborn prior to birth, and that makes sense in light of the generally-accepted definition of “personhood.” A pregnant woman was carrying a “life,” and hence she was carrying a new person;

Whereas, at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, Americans, state lawmakers, and government officials understood personhood to include the unborn, just as Blackstone defined it, and therefore a historical analysis shows that society in 1868 viewed personhood and life in much the same way that pro-lifers today view it;

Whereas, besides ignoring historical tradition, the Supreme Court further ignored its own Constitutional/Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence (established by Snyder v. Massachusetts in 1934) in determining which fundamental rights are incorporated on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The question the Court must ask is whether the asserted right “is so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” and the Court is obligated to use the time period of the Amendment’s adoption to make that determination. [Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)];

Whereas, the fact that a majority of the States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, and especially those that ratified it, had restrictions on abortions for at least a century should have been strong indication to the Court that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” [Snyder v. Massachusetts, pg. 105 of the opinion];

Whereas, William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a treatise that had profound influence on legal thinking and which was used in American law schools, was relied on by the Supreme Court, and continues to be cited even today in Supreme Court decisions (cited at least 10-12 times each year.) expressly recognized that personhood and the right to life existed before birth. He set forth a simple and clear legal standard: “Where life can be shown to exist, legal personhood exists.” [Blackstone’s Commentaries];

Whereas, it is clear that the fundamental mis-conception at the heart of the Roe case was that a fetus can never be a “life” and hence could never come under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment which speaks to rights of “persons.” In other words, the case was premised on an erroneous assumption;

Whereas, had the Supreme Court had looked at the “life” or the unborn/fetus as opposed to its “viability”; that is, if it had made the proper assumption that a fetus, at least at a certain point, becomes a living being, and hence a “life,” then the Constitution and our laws provide protection of that unborn, including observance of its fundamental rights;

Whereas, the Declaration of Independence professes: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”;

Whereas, the minute an individual is created and blessed with life, he or she is endowed with inalienable rights, including the right to Life. Moreover, government is instituted for the primary purpose of secure those rights. It makes no difference whether that individual is 15 years old, 40 years old, 10 years old, 1 month old, or 20 weeks old. The minute it became a living being, it is understood to be entitled to the most essential of all inalienable (those attaching to our very humanity) rights;

And whereas, had the Supreme Court recognized life and hence personhood in a fetus (again, at least at a certain point), then it’s analysis in Roe v. Wade would not have been “Woman’s Fundamental Right to an Abortion” vs. State Interest (if the state even wanted to exercise an interest) in preserving the life of the unborn” but rather the correct one which would have been “Woman’s Right to an Abortion” vs. “The Unborn’s Right to Life”;

Whereas, when we recognize an unborn fetus as an independent life, a woman’s right to have an abortion will never be broad enough to include the termination of a pregnancy that contains a living fetus. And therefore, just because she may not “want” it, it is still nonetheless a living human being, a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and absolutely entitled to Equal Protection under all our laws;

Whereas, if we will follow history and its understanding of “life” inside the womb, then countless living unborn babies will no longer have to be stripped of rights, equality, and even life. They will no longer have to be sacrificed at the altar of a woman’s broad right to an abortion.

THEREFORE, Be it Resolved that in consideration of all of the above, a unborn baby is absolutely capable of being considered a “life’ and therefore a “person” for purposes of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our laws;

Be it Further Resolved that an unborn baby is entitled to the Equal Application of all our laws and to the Equal Protection of them;

Furthermore, a health care practitioner who is present at the time an unborn baby is born following an abortion procedure, must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital;

Furthermore, a health care practitioner or other employee present at such time has an affirmative obligation and duty to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement;

And furthermore, any person who violates the requirements will be subject to criminal penalties (likely to include a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

Finally, Be it Resolved that an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.


Diane Rufino, “Why Can’t Women be Both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life? It’s Possible With Common-Sense Limitations on Abortion,” For Love of God and Country Blog, February 1, 2019. Referenced at: https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/02/01/why-cant-women-be-both-pro-choice-and-pro-life-its-possible-with-common-sense-limitations-on-abortions/

Revelations from Norma McCorvey (aka, Jane Roe) of Roe v. Wade – https://www.liveaction.org/news/7-powerful-quotes-from-jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade/

Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] full text of majority opinion – https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), summary – https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

Merle H Weiner, “Roe v. Wade Case (US),” Oxford Constitutional Law – http://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e564   [Under an “originalist” approach, the Court would have had to determine what the word “persons” was understood to mean when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified. “Originalism” is often equated with “Textualism” (where judges look at the meaning of the words and intent at the time they were written) A honest analysis would have looked not only at the definition of the term “persons” around the time of 1868, but also at society’s view of abortion at that time. In fact, for a claimed right to be covered by the 14th Amendment and hence free from government/state regulation, that right would have had to have been considered an essential liberty right at the time the Amendment was adopted. In other words, the Court should have asked two questions: “What did the term ‘persons’ mean back in 1868?” And, “Was abortion considered a fundamental liberty right back in 1868?” [That is, the Court should have asked: Was the asserted right to an abortion “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)].

Joshua J. Craddick, Joshua J. Craddock, “Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 40, No. 2 (2017). Referenced at: file:///C:/Users/diane/Downloads/SSRN-id2970761.pdf   [Abstract: What should the legal status of human beings in utero be under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution? Other legal thinkers have explored whether a national “right to abortion” can be justified on originalist grounds. Assuming that it cannot, and that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey were wrongly decided, only two other options are available. Should preborn human beings be considered legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, or do states retain authority to make abortion policy?

The late Justice Scalia famously argued for the latter position and pledged he would strike down a federal ban on abortion. But is this view consistent with the original meaning of the term “person”? Using originalist interpretive methods, this paper argues that preborn human beings are legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.]

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

STOP & FRISK: It’s a Good Thing


by Diane Rufino, February 27, 2020 (incorporating an article by Walter E. Williams in Townhall, Feb. 26, 2020, titled “Stop, Question, and Frisk”)

In 1968, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in the case of Terry v. Ohio, which gave an additional tool to law enforcement in fighting crime and limiting the number of people on the streets with guns NOT in furtherance of any constitutional right (for self-protection) but rather in furtherance of criminal activity and violence upon others. Terry v. Ohio gave us the STOP & FRISK policy, a policy that has helped save officers’ lives. As it turns out, it has also saved the lives of thousands in minority communities that have been hostile to this policy and hostile to police over the past 30-40 years.

The facts of the case are simple: A Cleveland detective named McFadden, who was patrolling a downtown beat that he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers on a street corner. who were acting “suspiciously.” He saw them walk back and forth in front of a particular store for about 24 minutes, pausing occasionally to look in the store window. Each time they appeared to scope out the store, they met with a third man on the nearby corner to converse. Suspecting the two men of having criminal intentions, of “casing a job,” the officer followed them. When they were joined by the third man, the officer approached and identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men seemed evasive, and quickly, McFadden spun petitioner Terry around and patted down his outside clothing. There was clearly a pistol in his pocket. ,The men were arrested and brought to the police station for carrying an unauthorized concealed weapon.

Supporters of the Second Amendment know that firearms are allowed for self-protection and self-defense, but NOT to carry out violent crime or to harm another, innocent human being. But the Second Amendment was not at issue in the case. The Fourth Amendment was.

So let’s review the Fourth Amendment. It reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has “seized” that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, a careful examination of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a “search” under that Amendment.

The ruling in the case provides (established) this general rule:

The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, “protects PEOPLE, not places,” and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere.

Where a reasonably prudent officer is justified in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.

(c) The officer McFadden was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. He was justified in believing that the petitioners (Terry and his buddies) who were engaging in suspicious behavior, were very likely armed and dangerous and therefore, he had the right to neutralize that threat of physical harm. Furthermore, he was justified in taking the necessary measures he took in order to determine whether those persons were carrying a weapon.

A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest, which has since become known in law enforcement as the “Stop & Frisk” or “Terry Stop,” must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation.

In light of this review of the Fourth Amendment, conservative columnist Walter E. Williams recently wrote an article on the “Stop & Frisk” policy in Townhall. It is an excellent article which I’ve copied and pasted below:

STOP, QUESTION, & FRISK, by Walter E. Williams, February 26, 2020.

Before former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg threw his hat into the 2020 presidential race, he defended the New York Police Department’s use of “stop, question and frisk” policing. At a United States Naval Academy’s 2019 Leadership Conference, Bloomberg said, “We focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system … kids who walked around looking like they might have a gun, remove the gun from their pockets and stop it.” He claimed that as a result of his policy, New York’s murder rate fell from 650 a year to 300 the year he left office.

In the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1968, granted limited approval to officers to stop, question and frisk, even though they lacked probable cause for an arrest, if the officer believed the subject to be dangerous. The Court’s decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a “reasonable search.”

The “Stop, Question and frisk” policy has taken on racial overtones because most of the people stopped are black men. Let’s look at the numbers. Last year, NYPD data showed that 93% of suspects arrested for murder were black or Hispanic. Ninety-six percent of those nabbed in shootings were also minorities.

Eighty-eight percent of New York City’s homicide victims were black or Hispanic as were 96% of shooting victims. While these percentages have been roughly the same for decades, New York police have brought the absolute number of crimes, including homicides, way down from its 1990 peak at 2,245 to 289 homicides in 2018. Since blacks and Hispanics are the major victims of homicide, as a result of the NYPD’s proactive response to crime, possibly tens of thousands of blacks are living today who would otherwise be dead.

For a law-abiding black person to be stopped, questioned and frisked — in a word or two, be racially profiled — is truly insulting. However, to analyze the policy, let’s look at the origins of racial profiling or any other kind of profiling. First of all, policemen are neither mind readers nor are they equipped with X-ray vision. That means good policing requires learning how to use an easily observed physical characteristic as a guess or proxy for some other difficult-to-observe characteristic. Thus, the reason people profile is that information is costly and they seek methods to economize on information costs. One way to do that is through profiling.

The reality is that race and other behavioral characteristics are correlated, including criminal behavior. That fact does not dispel the insult, embarrassment, anger and hurt a law-abiding black person might feel when being stopped by police, being watched in stores, being passed by taxi drivers, standing at traffic lights and hearing car door locks activated or being refused delivery by merchants who fear for their safety in his neighborhood.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a politician in pursuit of his own agenda. President Donald Trump is also a politician in pursuit of his own agenda. Both will deny their support for and talk down the policy of stop, question and frisk in an effort to curry favor with black voters. Most Bloomberg and Trump supporters don’t live under the horrible conditions that so many blacks live under in high crime cities like Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago and Detroit. Black people must ask what needs to be done to stop criminals from preying on them and making so many of their communities economic wastelands. If stop, question and frisk can contribute to that goal, so be it. They need not listen to politicians, academics, talking heads on the news and others.



Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), from the Cornell Law School library. Referenced at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

Walter E. Williams, “Stop, Question, & Frisk,” Townhall, February 26, 2020. Referenced at: https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2020/02/26/stop-question-and-frisk-n2561809?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=02/26/2020&bcid=97bd177d7c97e3c7ed4ac5ddd46f4819&recip=26887768

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


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.



“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


A Resolution for North Carolina

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.


**** Note that conservative members of the NC General Assembly want to remove the last sentence of Article I, Section 30. Outgoing representative Michael Speciale (R-Craven County) sponsored House Bill 145 (HB 145) in 2017 which would have removed it, but it did not pass. A similar initiative will no doubt be re-admitted in the future.



_________________________          _________________________            _________________________


_________________________          _________________________            _________________________


_________________________          _________________________            _________________________


**** 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 –


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.



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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment