Senator Dianne Feinstein Insults All U.S. Veterans

The LA Times printed the following piece after Senator Dianne Feinstein, desperate to save her gun control measure, said on the Senate floor “All vets are mentally ill in some way or another and the government should prevent them from owning firearms.” In other words, she insulted all U.S. veterans.

“Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re Number One. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone say the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on “MacBeth.” The five of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.” — Columnist Burt Prelutsky

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic? (an article from Hillsdale College)

by John R. Lott, Jr., IMPRIMIS, a publication of Hillsdale College, October 2021 [“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College”]

Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee voting makes voter fraud more likely. Voter files contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when citizens vote by mail.

Who was behind the Carter-Baker Commission? Donald Trump? No. The Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State, James Baker III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. It was truly a bipartisan commission that made what seemed at the time to be common-sense proposals.

How things have changed. How times have changed. Some of the Commission’s members, Jimmy Carter among them, came out last year to disavow the Commission’s work. And despite surveys showing that Americans overwhelmingly support measures to ensure election integrity – a recent Rasmussen survey found that 80% of Americans support a voter ID requirement – Democratic leaders across the board sternly oppose such measures.

President Biden, for example, speaking recently in Philadelphia, condemned the idea of a voter ID requirement. “There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today… an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections.” He went on to suggest that requiring a photo voter ID would mean returning people to slavery.

But the fact is that the United States is an outlier among the world’s democracies in NOT requiring a photo voter ID. Of the 47 countries Europe today, 46 of them currently require government-issued photo ID’s to vote. The odd man out is the United Kingdom, in which Northern Ireland and many localities require voter IDs, but the requirement is not nationwide. The British Parliament, however, is considering a nationwide requirement, so very soon all 47 European countries will likely have adopted this common sense policy.

When it comes to absentee voting, we Americans, accustomed as we are to very loose rules, are often shocked to learn that 35 of the 47 European countries – including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden – don’t allow absentee voting for citizens living in the particular country. Another ten European countries – including England, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain – allow absentee voting, but require voters to show up in person and present a photo ID to pick up their ballots. It isn’t like in the United States where a person can say he is going to be out of town and have a ballot mailed to him.

England used to have absentee voting rules similar to ours in the U.S, but in 2004, in the city of Birmingham (England), officials uncovered a massive vote fraud scheme in the city council races. The six winning Labor candidates had fraudulently acquired about 40,000 absentee votes, mainly from Muslim areas of the city. As a result, England ended the practice of mailing out absentee ballots and required voters to pick up their ballots in person with a photo ID.

Up until 1975, France also had loose absentee voting rules. But when massive voter fraud was discovered on the island of Corsica, where hundreds of thousands of dead people were found voting and even larger-scale vote-buying operations were occurring, France banned absentee voting altogether.

On the topic of buying votes, I should point out that we in the United States did not always have secret ballots. It wasn’t until 1880 that the first state adopted the secret ballot, and the last state to adopt it was South Carolina in 1950. Perhaps surprisingly, when secret ballots were adopted, the percentage of people voting fell by about 12%. Why was that? Prior to the adoption of the secret ballot, lots of people would get paid for voting. In those days, people voted by placing pieces of colored paper in the ballot box, with different colors representing different parties. Party officials would be present to observe what color paper each voter put into the box, and depending on the color, the voter would often get paid. Secret ballots put an end to this unethical practice.

France learned in 1975 that the use of absentee ballots led to the same practice; it allowed third parties to know how people voted and pay them for voting a certain way. This same problem is now proliferating in the U.S. in the form of “ballot harvesting,” the increasingly common practice where party functionaries distribute and collect ballots.

Defenders of our current voting rules point out that in lieu of absentee voting, some European countries allow “proxy voting,” whereby one person can designate another to vote for him or her. And while it is true that 8 of the 47 European countries allow proxy voting (meaning that 39 do not), there are strict requirements. In 5 of the 8 countries – Belgium, England, Monaco, Poland, and Sweden – proxy voting is limited to those with a disability or an illness or who are out of the country. In Poland, it also requires the approval of the local mayor and in Monaco, the approval of the general secretariat. In France and the Netherlands, proxy voting has to be arranged through a notary public. Switzerland is the only country in Europe with a relative liberal proxy voting policy, requiring only a signature match.

How about our neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Canada requires a photo ID to vote. If a voter shows up at the polls without an ID, he is allowed to vote only if he declares who he is in writing and if there is someone working at the polling station who can personally verify his or her identity.

Mexico has had a long history of election fraud. Partly because its leaders were concerned about a drop in foreign investment if it wasn’t perceived to be a legitimate democracy, Mexico recently instituted strict election reforms.  Voters must present a biometric ID – an ID with not only a photo, but also a thumb print. Voters also have indelible ink applied to their thumbs, preventing them from voting more than once. And absentee voting is prohibited, even for people living outside the country.

Those who oppose election integrity reforms here in the U.S. often condemn it as a means of “voter suppression.” But in Mexico, the percentage of people voting rose from 59% before the reforms to 68% after. It turned out that Mexicans were more, not less, likely to vote when they had confidence that their votes mattered.

In light of the requirements to vote in other countries, how is it that Democrats can honestly claim that requiring a photo ID to vote amounts to a burden on the right to vote, an “attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote,” and would signal a “return to slavery”?

Schemingly, Democratic Party leaders have been pushing this year to adopt  H.R.1, a radical bill that would prohibit states from requiring voter ID and require states to allow permanent mail-in voting. Mail-in voting, I hardly need to point out, is even worse, in terms of voter fraud, than absentee voting. With absentee voting, a person at least has to request a ballot. With mail-in voting, as we saw in too many precincts in the 2020 election, ballots are simply mailed to everyone. One person can request a mail-in ballot be mailed to others. A political party can request that mail-in ballots be mailed out. With loose absentee voting rules, a country is making itself vulnerable to voter fraud. With mail-in voting, a country is almost begging for voter fraud.

If the rhetoric we hear from the Left today is correct, if voter ID requirements and restrictions on absentee (or even mail-in) voting are un-democratic, then so are the countries of Europe, Canada, and especially Mexico, as well as the rest of the developed world.

Those opposing common-sense measures and reforms to ensure integrity in U.S. elections, measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005, are not motivated by a concern for democracy, but by partisan interests.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Case for a Law Defining LIFE (which includes time in the womb)

by Diane Rufino, December 4, 2021

I have been reading the current abortion case that has come out of the state of Mississippi and which was heard in oral argument in front of the Supreme Court on Dec. 1, 2021. The case – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org – centers around a law that the Mississippi General Assembly passed – “The Gestational Age Act” or H.B. 1510) – designed to limit abortions and to protect the life and health of the mother and of course, to address the state’s interest in the life of the unborn. The suit was filed by the state’s only abortion clinic, alleging that the law violates the abortion rights of the women it serves. The case specifically addresses the “viability rule,” which was discussed and which formed a foundation of the ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973). Viability refers to the ability of a fetus to survive outside the womb (“becoming a viable human being”), which was taken to be approximately 24 weeks of gestation. Roe recognized the right of a woman to get an abortion, no questions asked, up until viability.

Today we recognize that Roe’s ‘viability line’ is arbitrary and in fact, in the face of the growing body of research and knowledge surrounding embryonic and gestational development, is offensive, cruel and unusual, and tortuous to the unborn baby.

Since 1973, there have been tremendous advances in medical and scientific knowledge, most importantly in studies that have confirmed that a developing fetus is clearly able to feel pain by 15 weeks of gestation and with the development of ultrasound technology (which allows expectant mothers to watch and monitor the growth and development of their unborn babies).

Here are the medical findings that support Mississippi’s law:

(1)  “Between 5-6 weeks of gestation, an unborn human being’s heart begins beating.

(2)  “An unborn human being begins to move about in the womb at approximately 8 weeks of gestation.”

(3)  “At 9 weeks of gestation, all basic physiological functions are present. Teeth and eyes are present, as well as external genitalia.”

(4)  “An unborn human being’s vital organs begin to function at 10 weeks of gestation. Hair, fingernails, and toenails also begin to form.”

(5)  “At 11 weeks of gestation, an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing, and he or she may even hiccup. He or she is beginning to move about freely in the womb.”

(6)  “At 12 weeks of gestation, an unborn human being can open and close his or her fingers, starts to make sucking motions, and senses stimulation from the world outside the womb. Importantly, he or she has taken ‘the human form’ in all relevant aspects. Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 160 (2007).”

(7)  “The majority of abortion procedures performed after 15 weeks of gestation are dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures which involve the use of surgical instruments to crush and tear the unborn child apart before removing the pieces of the dead child from the womb. The Legislature finds that the intentional commitment of such acts for non-therapeutic or elective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.”

(8)  “Abortion carries significant physical and psychological risks to the maternal patient, and these physical and psychological risks increase with gestational age. Specifically, in abortions performed after 8 weeks of gestation, the relative physical and psychological risks escalate exponentially as gestational age increases.

(9)  “As the second trimester progresses, in the vast majority of uncomplicated pregnancies, the material health risks of undergoing an abortion are greater than the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.”

(10)  “Medical complications from dilation and evacuation abortions include, but are not limited to: pelvic infection, incomplete abortions (retained fetal tissue), blood clots, heavy bleeding or hemorrhage, laceration, tear, or other injury to the cervix, puncture, laceration, tear, or other injury to the uterus, injury to the bowel or bladder, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and other emotional or psychological problems. Further, in abortions performed after 15 weeks of gestation, there is a higher risk of requiring a hysterectomy, other reparative type surgery, or blood transfusion.”

H.B. 1510 would allow a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy before 15 weeks of gestation. But after 15 weeks, a pregnant woman can only get an abortion for a documented medical emergency or for a severe fetal abnormality. Mississippi asserts that it has the right, under the Tenth Amendment and as a federated and sovereign state, to regulate abortions and to further its interest in the health of the expectant mother and also in the new life that has been created in a woman’s womb. “It is troubling to Americans of good faith and conscience that federal courts, without any basis in constitutional text or original meaning can restrict the states in their ability and authority to regulate in the area of abortion [when there is express wording provided in the Tenth Amendment],” commented federal Judge Ho.

The federal district court held against the validity of “The Gestational Age Act” and sided in favor of the abortion facility, Jackson Women’s Health Org, rationalizing that under controlling legal precedent, Mississippi’s 15-week ‘viability rule’ is unconstitutional because it would “ban pre-viability abortions.”  (Mississippi, through its attorney general, is challenging Jackson Women’s Health’s ability to even bring the suit in the first place. It did not allege that the law violates their own constitutional rights, but rather it violates its clients’ rights. And that, according to the attorney for the state, Scott Stewart, presented a clear conflict of interest. The abortion clinic improperly hijacked the women’s rights as a means to overturn a regulation that burdens their business, their bottom line, by prohibiting late-term abortions).

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling but had some serious criticisms of how it reached its conclusion and how it framed its rationale. Judge Ho said he was “deeply troubled by how the district court handled the case.” The district court’s opinion, he explained, “displays an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe that babies deserve legal protection during pregnancy as well as after birth, and that abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life…. The district court’s opinion disparages the Mississippi legislature and smears Mississippi legislators by linking House Bill 1510 to the state’s tragic history of race relations while ignoring abortion’s own checkered racial past. It is troubling that that federal courts, without any basis in constitutional text or original meaning can restrict the states in their ability and authority to regulate in the area of abortion.”

So, in granting review to Mississippi and agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court opined that it is well past time for the Court to revisit the wisdom of the bright-line viability rule.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to Mississippi, giving the state a chance to articulate its case before the high court. The reason it granted review is because the justices believe that there are “many good reasons to revisit the bright-line rule (of Roe) concerning viability of unborn life.”

In the important case of Gonzalez v. Carhart (2007), which addressed partial-birth abortion procedures, the Supreme Court recognized that an unborn child “is a living organism while within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” As a result, the Court concluded, “the child is entitled to be respected for the dignity of its human life.”  Furthermore, in Gonzalez, the Court recognized that States have a legitimate interest in regulating abortion – in protecting the life and health of the mother and in protecting the life of the unborn.

What about viable alternatives to abortion?  Why does no one recognize that with a pregnancy, there are actually two lives. Why hasn’t any court recognized this, the most central issue at the heart of abortion?  The issue of alternatives to abortion was brought up repeatedly during oral argument by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee:

“So petitioner points out that in all 50 states, you can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after [birth], and I think the shortest period might be 48 hours if I’m remembering the data correctly. It seems to me, seen in that light — both Roe and Casey emphasize the burdens of parenting. And insofar as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which forced parenting, forced motherhood, would hinder women’s access to the workplace, and to equal opportunities, it’s also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy — why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?

It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly. There is without question an infringement on bodily autonomy, for which we have another context like vaccines — however, it doesn’t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden, and so it seems to me that the choice, more focused, would be between say the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks, or the state requiring the woman to go 15, 16 weeks more, and then terminate parental rights at the conclusion. Why didn’t you address the safe haven laws and why don’t they matter?

Justice Barrett wasn’t satisfied with the answer that the attorney for Jackson Women’s Health gave. She raised the issue of adoption a second time: “Actually, as I read Roe and Casey (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992), they don’t talk very much about adoption. It’s a passing reference that means out of the obligations of parenthood.

By raising this option, Barrett had taken direct aim at Casey, a decision that reaffirmed Roe while injecting an equality principle into the right to abortion by explaining that the burdens of parenthood diminished women’s personal and professional opportunities. She suggested that with the expansion of adoption in the US, the ruling in Casey is actually ripe for reversal.

What about states enacting laws to serve their own particular views on regulating abortion, such as a “definition of life” law that defines life as beginning at some point during gestation?  There are many different views on the right to have an abortion, including no right to an abortion, and shouldn’t each state, through their government and through the voice of the people, decide on the particular approach to take. I would argue that a perfect way to regulate abortion and to respect the life of the unborn is to ask the state legislatures to pass a bill that defines life, and defines it to include time in the womb. I’m not saying necessarily that life has to be defined at conception, as Roman Catholics believe, but there should be a reasonable point in gestation when the fetus has the necessary functions and features that define life. A sample “Definition of Life” Bill is provided below.

Roman Catholics believe that a new and unique human being is formed at the moment of conception when two independent cells (one from mom and the other from dad), incapable on their own of creating new life, merge to form a single fused cell with a distinct DNA identity and then becomes capable of growing into a unique new individual human being.

Who speaks for the unborn?  It must be the people and it must be the government, whose representatives take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and all the values and principles they represent.

ReferenceDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org, petition to the Supreme Court to be granted a Writ of Certiorari –  chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?



(A)  Roman Catholics believe that life begins at the moment of conception. They believe that a new and unique human being is formed at the moment of conception when two independent cells (one from mom and the other from dad), incapable on their own of creating new life, merge to form a single fused cell with a distinct DNA identity and then becomes capable of growing into a unique new individual human being.

(B)  Whether or not a woman or under-age female believes she is carrying a “life” in her womb depends upon her state of mind: If she wants a baby and if she is happy to be pregnant, then she believes instinctively that she is already a “mother” and that what is growing inside her is definitely a new human life.  If she does not want to be pregnant, if she does not want to be a mother (for any of a number of reasons), then what she is going on in her womb is nothing more than a nuisance – just a growing mass of cells, without life. One believes in dignity and the other does not.

(C)  The bottom line is that a pregnancy, at least from a certain point in gestation, involves the life, the dignity, and the rights of two human beings. It cannot be just the right of the mother that carries the day and dictates what is to be done with the pregnancy and the life or death of the unborn. Morality, decency and humanity (and Biology as well) must require us to accept this and respect it.

(D)  The “viability rule,” as recognized by the outdated landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade (1973) refers to the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother’s womb. In Roe, “viability” was understood to mean 24 weeks of gestation. The ruling in Roe gave women the absolute right to an abortion, no questions asked, up until the 24-week-old mark. That viability line is arbitrary and unsound. In fact, in the face of the growing body of research and knowledge surrounding embryonic and gestational development, it is offensive, cruel and unusual, and tortuous to the unborn baby. As the State of Mississippi has alleged in its case before the Supreme Court (argued Dec. 1, 2021), “the time is ripe for the old rule of Roe v. Wade to be reversed.” And the Supreme Court justices, in granting review, indicated that they believe that there are “many good reasons to revisit the bright-line rule (of Roe) concerning viability of unborn life.”

(E)  In the whole discussion of abortion and unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, no one, and certainly not the Supreme Court or other federal court, has addressed a very important issue – alternatives to an abortion; the opportunity to preserve life while not being forced to be a parent.

(F)  All these issues being considered, it is a fair and honest assessment, based on genuine and accurate scientific research and studies, that a human life shall come into existence at 15 weeks of gestation. And as such, that unborn child will demand recognition, will be worthy of life and human dignity, will be endowed with inalienable, constitutional, and civil rights.

(G)  The State, having a vested interest in the life of the unborn child, just as it has an interest in all children, will act on its behalf and for its best interests.

SECTION 2:  FINDINGS.  The North Carolina General Assembly hereby finds, according to contemporary medical research, all of the following:

(1)  A fetal heartbeat begins at a biologically identifiable moment in time, normally when the fetal heart is formed in during the early weeks of gestation – between 5-6 weeks of gestation.  

(2)  An unborn human being begins to move about in the womb at approximately 8 weeks of gestation.

(3)  At 9 weeks of gestation, all basic physiological functions are present. Teeth and eyes are present, as well as external genitalia.

(4)  An unborn human being’s vital organs begin to function at 10 weeks of gestation. Hair, fingernails, and toenails also begin to form.

(5)  At 11 weeks of gestation, an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing, and he or she may even hiccup. He or she is beginning to move about freely in the womb.

(6)  At 12 weeks of gestation, an unborn human being can open and close his or her fingers, starts to make sucking motions, and senses stimulation from the world outside the womb. Importantly, he or she has taken ‘the human form’ in all relevant aspects. [See Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 160 (2007).

(7)  By 15 weeks (if not earlier), an unborn human being can clearly feel pain.

(8)  The majority of abortion procedures performed after 15 weeks of gestation are dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures which involve the use of surgical instruments to crush and tear the unborn child apart before removing the pieces of the dead child from the womb. The Legislature finds that the intentional commitment of such acts for non-therapeutic or elective reasons is a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession.”

(9)  Abortion carries significant physical and psychological risks to the maternal patient, and these physical and psychological risks increase with gestational age. Specifically, in abortions performed after 8 weeks of gestation, the relative physical and psychological risks escalate exponentially as gestational age increases.

(10)  “As the second trimester progresses, in the vast majority of uncomplicated pregnancies, the material health risks of undergoing an abortion are greater than the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.”

(11)  As many as thirty percent of natural pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage.

(12)  Fewer than five percent of all natural pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage after the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

(13)  Over ninety percent of in vitro pregnancies survive the first trimester if a fetal heartbeat is detected.

(14)  Nearly ninety percent of in vitro pregnancies do not survive the first trimester if a fetal heartbeat is not detected.

(15)  A fetal heartbeat is a key medical predictor that an unborn human individual will reach live birth.

(16)  The State of North Carolina has legitimate interests from the outset of a pregnancy in protecting the life and health of the pregnant woman, the life of the unborn child who is developing inside her womb, and the integrity of the medical profession.

(17)  “Medical complications from dilation and evacuation abortions include, but are not limited to: pelvic infection, incomplete abortions (retained fetal tissue), blood clots, heavy bleeding or hemorrhage, laceration, tear, or other injury to the cervix, puncture, laceration, tear, or other injury to the uterus, injury to the bowel or bladder, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and other emotional or psychological problems. Further, in abortions performed after 15 weeks of gestation, there is a higher risk of requiring a hysterectomy, other reparative type surgery, or blood transfusion.”

(18)  In order to make an informed choice about whether to continue a pregnancy, a pregnant woman has a legitimate interest in knowing the likelihood of the human fetus surviving to full-term birth based upon the presence of a fetal heartbeat.

[These findings were accepted by the Mississippi state legislature, after consultation with medical professions. See reference provided]

SECTION 3.  DEFINITIONS. As used in this article:

(1)  “Conception” means fertilization.

(2)  “Contraceptive” means a drug, device, or chemical that prevents conception.

(3)  “Fetal heartbeat” means cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac.

(4)  “Gestational age” means the age of an unborn human individual as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of a pregnant woman.

(5)  “Gestational sac” refers to the structure that houses and encompasses the extraembryonic membranes that envelop the human fetus and that is typically visible by ultrasound after the fourth week of pregnancy.

(6)  “Human fetus” or “unborn child” each means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.

(7)  “Intrauterine pregnancy” means a pregnancy in which a human fetus is attached to the placenta within the uterus of a pregnant woman.

(8)  “Medical emergency” means a condition that, by any reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman that it necessitates the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death without first determining whether there is a detectable fetal heartbeat or for which the delay necessary to determine whether there is a detectable fetal heartbeat will create serious risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. A condition must not be considered a medical emergency if based on a claim or diagnosis that a woman will engage in conduct that she intends to result in her death or in a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.

(9)  “Physician” means any person licensed to practice medicine and surgery, or osteopathic medicine and surgery, in this State.

(10)  “Reasonable medical judgment” means a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician who is knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.

(11)  “Spontaneous miscarriage” means the natural or accidental termination of a pregnancy and the expulsion of the human fetus, typically caused by genetic defects in the human fetus or physical abnormalities in the pregnant woman.

(12)  “Viability Rule” refers to the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother’s womb. In Roe v. Wade, “viability” was understood to mean 24 weeks of gestation.


(A)  An abortion provider who is to perform or induce a legalized abortion, a certified technician, or another agent of the abortion provider who is competent in ultrasonography shall:

(1)  Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using whichever method the physician and pregnant woman agree is best under the circumstances;

(2)  During the performance of the ultrasound, display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view the images; and

(3)  Record a written medical description of the ultrasound images of the unborn child’s fetal heartbeat, if present and viewable.

(B)  If a pregnancy is at least eight weeks after fertilization, then the abortion provider who is to perform or induce an abortion, or an agent of the abortion provider, shall tell the woman that it may be possible to make the embryonic or fetal heartbeat of the unborn child audible for the pregnant woman to hear and shall ask the woman if she would like to hear the heartbeat. If the woman would like to hear the heartbeat, then the abortion provider shall, using whichever method the physician and patient agree is best under the circumstances, make the fetal heartbeat of the unborn child audible for the pregnant woman to hear.

(C)  Except as provided above in subsection (A), no person shall perform, induce, or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman before a physician determines in accordance with subsection (A)(3) whether the human fetus the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat.

(D)  A person who violates subsection (A) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined ten thousand dollars, imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(E)  Subsection (D) above does not apply to a physician who performs or induces an abortion if the physician determines according to standard medical practice that a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with the section.

(F)  A physician is not in violation of this Section if the physician acts in accordance with its mandates and the method used to test for the presence of a fetal heartbeat does not reveal a fetal heartbeat.

(G)  A physician who performs or induces an abortion on a pregnant woman based on the exception provided in subsection (D) above shall make written notations in the pregnant woman’s medical records of the following:

(1)  The physician’s belief that a medical emergency necessitating the abortion existed;

(2)  The physician has determined that there is a fetal abnormality and has communicated that condition clearly to the pregnant women;

(2)  The medical condition of the pregnant woman that assertedly prevented compliance with Section (A) above; and

(3)  The medical rationale to support the physician’s conclusion that the pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitated the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death.

(G)  For at least seven years from the date the notations are made, the physician shall maintain in his own records a copy of the notations.


(A)  Except as provided in Section 5 as to Exceptions to the plain meaning and spirit of this law, no person shall perform, induce, or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the human fetus the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected in accordance with Section 4 (A).  

(B)  A physician may perform, induce, or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman after a fetal heartbeat has been detected in only if:

(1)  The pregnancy is the result of rape, and the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is fewer than twenty weeks;

(2)  The pregnancy is the result of incest, and the probable post-fertilization age of the fetus is fewer than twenty weeks;

(3)  The physician is acting in accordance with Section 4.

(4)  There exists a fetal anomaly, as defined in Section 4.

(C)  A physician who performs or induces an abortion on a pregnant woman based on the Exceptions articulated in Section 4 must report the allegation of rape or incest to the sheriff in the county in which the abortion was performed. The report must be made no later than twenty-four hours after performing or inducing the abortion, may be made orally or otherwise, and shall include the name and contact information of the pregnant woman making the allegation. Prior to performing or inducing an abortion, a physician who performs or induces an abortion based upon an allegation of rape or incest must notify the pregnant woman that the physician will report the allegation of rape or incest to the sheriff. The physician shall make written notations in the pregnant woman’s medical records that the abortion was performed pursuant to the applicable exception, that the doctor timely notified the sheriff of the allegation of rape or incest, and that the woman was notified prior to the abortion that the physician would notify the sheriff of the allegation of rape or incest.

(D)  A physician or other person who violates subsection (A) above is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined ten thousand dollars, imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(E)  Subsection (D) above does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure that, by any reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent the serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

(F)  A physician who performs such a medical procedure as described above in subsection (E) shall declare, in a written document, that the medical procedure was necessary, by reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent the serious risk of a substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. In the document, the physician shall specify the pregnant woman’s medical condition that the medical procedure was asserted to address and the medical rationale for the physician’s conclusion that the medical procedure was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent the serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

(F)  A physician who performs such a medical procedure as described in subsection (E) shall place the written document required by subsection (F) in the pregnant woman’s medical records. For at least seven years from the date the document is created, the physician shall maintain a copy of the document in his own records.

(G)  A physician will not be in violation of Subsection (A) if the physician acts in accordance with the aforementioned requirements and the method used to test for the presence of a fetal heartbeat does not reveal a fetal heartbeat.


A woman or underage female who is pregnant and does not want to continue with the pregnancy (ie, seeks to have an abortion) shall be provided with information to offer her possible alternatives to abortion, including but not limited to: adoption (closed or open), direct placement adoption, agency adoption, Christian adoption, asking the father to take legal rights to the baby, legal guardianship, religious counseling, peer counseling, and counseling from a pregnancy center.


(A)  Nothing in this article prohibits the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a drug, device, or chemical that is designed for contraceptive purposes.

(B)  A pregnant woman on whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this article may not be criminally prosecuted for violating any of the provisions of this article or for attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or acting complicitly in committing a violation of any of the provisions of the article and is not subject to a civil or criminal penalty based on the abortion being performed or induced in violation of any of the provisions of this article.


(A)  A woman who meets any one or more of the following criteria may file a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction:

(1)  A woman on whom an abortion was performed or induced in violation of this article; or

(2)  A woman on whom an abortion was performed or induced who was not given the information as required in Section 4.

(B)  A woman who prevails in an action filed pursuant to subsection (A) shall receive the following from the person or party which has been named as committing the act or acts

(1)  Damages in an amount equal to ten thousand dollars or an amount determined by the trier of fact after consideration of the evidence; and

(2)  Court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

(C)  If the defendant in an action filed pursuant to subsection (A) prevails and the court finds that the commencement of the action constitutes frivolous conduct and that the defendant was adversely affected by the frivolous conduct, then the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to the defendant; provided, however, that a conclusion of frivolousness cannot rest upon the unconstitutionality of the provision that was allegedly violated.”


A)  A court judgment or order suspending enforcement of any provision of this chapter is not to be regarded as tantamount to repeal of that provision.

(B)  If the United States Supreme Court finds in favor of the State of Mississippi in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. case (2021-22) and revisits the wisdom and utility of the bright-line “viability rule,” if it should otherwise issue a ruling overruling Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), if any other court issues an order or judgment restoring, expanding, or clarifying the authority of states to prohibit or regulate abortion entirely or in part, or should an amendment be ratified to the Constitution of the United States restoring, expanding, or clarifying the authority of states to prohibit or regulate abortion entirely or in part, then the Attorney General may apply to the pertinent state or federal court for either or both of the following:

(1)  A declaration that any one or more of the statutory provisions specified in subsection (A) are constitutional; or

(2) A judgment or order lifting an injunction against the enforcement of any one or more of the statutory provisions specified in subsection (A).

(C)  If the Attorney General fails to apply for relief pursuant to subsection (B) within a thirty-day period after an event described in that subsection occurs, then any solicitor may apply to the appropriate state or federal court for such relief.


“South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act” –

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org, petition to the Supreme Court to be granted a Writ of Certiorari –  chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?


(A)  A pregnant woman seeking an abortion must be informed by the physician who is to perform the abortion (or by an allied health professional working in conjunction with the physician):

(1)  Of the exact nature of the procedure to be involved;

(2)  If there is a fetal heartbeat (and he/she must let the pregnant woman hear it, unless she refuses to hear it); and  

(3)  Of the probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed.

(B)  If an ultrasound is performed, an abortion may not be performed sooner than sixty minutes following completion of the ultrasound. The physician who is to perform the abortion or an allied health professional working in conjunction with the physician must inform the woman before the ultrasound procedure of her right to view the ultrasound image at her request during or after the ultrasound procedure.

(C)  If the physician who intends to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman has determined pursuant to Section (A)(2) above that the human fetus the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat, then that physician shall inform the pregnant woman in writing that the human fetus the pregnant woman is carrying has a fetal heartbeat.

(D)  The physician shall further inform the pregnant woman, to the best of the physician’s knowledge, of the statistical probability, absent an induced abortion, of bringing the human fetus possessing a detectable fetal heartbeat to term based on the gestational age of the human fetus or, if the director of the department has specified statistical probability information, shall provide to the pregnant woman that information. The department may promulgate regulations that specify information regarding the statistical probability of bringing an unborn child possessing a detectable fetal heartbeat to term based on the gestational age of the unborn child. Any regulations must be based on available medical evidence.”

(E)  A woman or under-age female seeking an abortionshall be provided with information to offer her possible alternatives to abortion, including but not limited to: adoption (closed or open), direct placement adoption, agency adoption, Christian adoption, asking the father to take legal rights to the baby, legal guardianship, religious counseling, peer counseling, and counseling from a pregnancy center.

(F)  If the reason for the abortion was other than to preserve the health of the pregnant woman, then the physician who is to perform the abortion must fill out a report specifying that maternal health was not the purpose of the abortion. This information must also be placed in the pregnant woman’s medical records and maintained for at least seven years thereafter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


by Diane Rufino, November 27, 2021


The Constitution established the United States as a democratic republic.  It is democratic because the people govern themselves, and it is a republic because the government’s power is derived from its people. This means that our governments – federal, state, and local – are elected by the citizens.  Citizens vote for their government officials and these officials represent the concerns and ideas of the citizens in government. That is, in an ideal world, that is how it should work; it is certainly the system which our Founding Fathers envisioned for us.

Voting is one important way that we can participate in our democracy. In order to vote for President in a federal election, a citizen must be 18 or older and abide by neutral voting laws that ensure that voting is fair, honest, and transparent, and holds true to the constitutional principle of “One Person, One Vote” (which means that every single citizen has an equal say in state and local elections, as well as of our nation’s president.

Besides voting for officials, citizens also have the ability and right to vote on issues. Voters may want to make changes to their community, such as building bigger schools or adding new roads. And we may be upset, angered, or frustrated at the actions of certain government officials (again, local, state, and federal) and so we have the right and freedom to contact them.

Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in our democracy.

Sadly, and unfortunately, election fraud is real.

We know this all too well. It was shown that John F. Kennedy could not have defeated Richard Nixon in the presidential election of 1960 if it weren’t for the “systematic fraud” in key states won by Kennedy, particularly in Illinois and his running-mate’s (Lyndon B Johnson) home state of Texas. When I chose to look into the story, I expected the stories to be apocryphal with little solid evidence to back them. After an investigation and an almost-forensic look at the votes cast in Illinois, it can be said that Illinois was certainly stolen and that although the results in Texas were never properly investigated, the election results from that state were highly suspicious.

We know it again all too well with the 2020 presidential election.

Elections have consequences. We saw, in 2016 (through 2020) how the consequences could have very favorable consequences for our country and then with the so-celled election of Joe Biden in 2020 and his taking office the following January, we saw how the consequences can have dire consequences for Americans and for the safety, security, and prestige of the United States.

The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database, which has chronicled more than 1,300 cases of election fraud, proves that election fraud does occur in American elections. Errors and omissions by election officials and careless, shoddy election practices and procedures or lack of training can also cause and have caused problems for voters and candidates alike.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. States can, and should, take action to restore integrity to our elections.

WHEREAS, the John Locke Foundation and The Heritage Foundation advocate that election reform must occur in two ways:  First, States should nullify any federal act of Congress or federal court decision that infringes on the state legislators exclusive right to make rules regarding presidential elections, and second, States need real election reform, enacted by their legislatures, that must include:

An Ideal System of Voting Should Include:

(1)  A single day for voting, Election Day, which the federal government should establish as a national holiday. Should the federal government refuse to do so, the state governments should establish “Election Day” as a state holiday. This way, individuals don’t have to worry about finding time to vote with their work schedules and they also will have plenty of time to plan to get out to vote.

(2)  No early voting; no Saturday voting and no Sunday voting. (Churches are always free to use their buses and vans to help the elderly get to polling locations.

(3)  Paper ballots only. This way, there is no electronic hacking, no software manipulations, no computer irregularities, no ballot-counting manipulations, etc.

(4)  Verification of the citizenship of voters. Only lawful citizens can vote in federal elections. States should, therefore, require proof of citizenship to register to vote, as well as verify the citizenship of registered voters with the records of the Department of Homeland Security, including access to the E-Verify system.

(5)  A Strict Voter ID requirement.  (A picture ID will prove the identify of the voter as well as his or her address). A voter should be required to validate his or her identity with government-issued photo ID to vote in-person or by absentee ballot (as states such as Alabama and Kansas require). Government-issued IDs should be free for those who cannot afford one.

Voter ID is a neutral requirement that is applied universally and neutrally (See the remarks below from Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson).

(6)  The elimination of “Same-Day” voter registration.

(7)  Limitation of Absentee ballots (perhaps one of the greatest sources of election and voter fraud). Absentee ballots should be reserved for those individuals who are too disabled to vote in person, are being hospitalized, or who will be out of town on Election Day.

(8)  A requirement that absentee ballots must be notarized. 

(9)   A state requirement that ensures the accuracy of voter registration lists. Computerized statewide voter-registration lists should be designed to be interoperable so that they can communicate seamlessly with other state record databases to allow frequent exchanges and comparisons of information. [For example, when an individual changes the residence address on his or her driver’s license, that information should be sent to state election officials so that the voter-registration address of the individual is also changed to his or her new Department of Motor Vehicles residence address].  Voter registration lists should be updated and verified in a timely manner, to remove the names of those who have died, moved, or been sentenced as felons, to ensure accuracy and validity and help eliminate voter fraud.

(10)  A federal or state law prohibiting and thus preventing vote trafficking. Vote-trafficking (also called “vote harvesting”) by third parties should be banned. That would ensure that candidates, campaign staffers, party activists, and political consultants are prohibited from picking up and potentially mishandling or changing absentee ballots and pressuring or coercing vulnerable voters in their homes. In other words, a political group can’t offer to pick up ballots and then bring them to the polling place and/or mail them, with no third party supervising that group’s behavior in the interim.

(11)  A provision that allow election observers complete access to the election process. Because transparency is absolutely essential to a fair and secure system, political parties, candidates, and third-party organizations should all be allowed to have observers in every aspect of the election process. The only limitation on such observers would be that they cannot interfere with the voting and counting process.

(12)  A requirement that a representative of the election office (local Board of Elections) be present or otherwise available to answer the questions of the observers. By law, they should be allowed to be in a position to observe everything going on, other than the actual voting by individuals. (Additionally, election officials should be prohibited from stationing observers so far away that they cannot observe the process, including such procedures as the opening of absentee ballots and the verification process).

(13)  A provision that permits voting assistance. Any individual providing assistance to a voter in a voting booth because the voter is illiterate, disabled, or otherwise requires assistance should be required to complete a form, to be filed with poll election officials, providing their name, address, contact information, and the reason they are providing assistance. They should also be required to provide a photo ID.

(14)  A prohibition on early vote counting. To avoid premature release of election results, the counting of ballots, including absentee and early votes, should not begin until the polls close at the end of Election Day. However, if a state insists on beginning the count before Election Day, it should ban the release of results until the evening of Election Day, subject to criminal penalties.

(15)  A requirement that ALL votes are counted and reported at the precinct level.

(16)  A law that provides the state legislature with legal standing. State legislatures must ensure that they have legal standing—either through a specific state law or through a constitutional amendment if that is required—to sue other state officials, such as governors or secretaries of state, who make or attempt to make unauthorized changes in state election laws. [For example, if a secretary of state extends the deadline set by state law for the receipt of absentee ballots, legislatures should have legal standing to contest that unilateral change that overrides state law. They should be classified as a necessary party in any lawsuit. And voters should be provided by state law with the ability to file a writ of mandamus against any state or local official who fails to abide by, or enforce, a state election-law requirement. And per another example, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, in 2020, made changes to election law unilaterally]. We must ensure that such unilateral or otherwise “shady” practices can’t happen again in other states or in future elections.

(17)  A state requirement that the election process be audited (by non-partisan auditors) and that a post-election audit be conducted (also by non-partisan state auditors) to ensure the public has confidence in the election process and the integrity of the election results.

(18)  A requirement that only the state legislature may change standards of what votes are valid, in order that the same standard is applied statewide.

(19)  Easy and equal access to the ballot box.

(20)  An acknowledgment by the state legislature or state Board of Elections and by local Boards of Election that the State has the authority, under the Tenth Amendment, to nullify all federally-mandated election laws.

(21)  A process and procedure for voters, who suspect fraud and other election illegality, to contest the election results in their precinct (in their county, and in their state) and demand a recount, an audit (regular or forensic), or a special election with all possibility means of scrutiny in place.  [Texas has such a provision].

(22)  A provision that punishes a political party should it be found to be at the center of any election fraud (thus requiring a recount, an audit, or special election) to include that party being responsible for the costs of such recount, audit, or special election.  Such costs should not have to be borne by the law-abiding taxpayers.

Mexico has had a long history of election fraud. Partly because its leaders were concerned about a drop in foreign investment if it wasn’t perceived to be a legitimate democracy, Mexico recently instituted strict election reforms.  Voters must present a biometric ID – an ID with not only a photo, but also a thumb print. Voters also have indelible ink applied to their thumbs, preventing them from voting more than once. And absentee voting is prohibited, even for people living outside the country.

Those who oppose election integrity reforms here in the U.S. often condemn it as a means of “voter suppression.” But in Mexico, the percentage of people voting rose from 59% before the reforms to 68% after. It turned out that Mexicans were more, not less, likely to vote when they had confidence that their votes mattered.

Here are the remarks Lieutenant Governor Robinson delivered to the NC General Assembly (April 22, 2020):

I am the first black lieutenant governor of North Carolina. I hail from Greensboro, the home of the Woolworth sit-ins. It was an epi-center of the Civil Rights movement. I grew up poor as the ninth of ten children, in a home marred by alcoholism. But I had a mother who was a strong woman of faith and she sustained us. She was also a woman who lived through the horribleness of Jim Crow and witnessed the sacrifices made by those to insure that black voices would be heard in government. I know right now she is up in heaven smiling as she sees her son in this committee hearing. But today I am not here to talk about myself……  I am very proud of the history in this nation of my people. My people were put in the belly of ships, and bound in chains during the middle passage. My people were whipped, beaten, and sold as property into slavery. During Reconstruction and during Jim Crow, my people were in intimidated, harassed, and even killed to keep them from having a voice in government. Symbols like chains, nooses, and burning crosses were not just symbols of death but symbols of forced, coerced silence. The sacrifices of our ancestors so I can have the opportunity to become the first black lieutenant governor of my state, to see a black man sit in the White House for two terms, and for millions of us to become leaders in business, athletics, government, and culture add up to an incredible story of victory.

Today we hear that our states are being compared to Jim Crow, that black voices are being silenced and that black voices are being kept out. How?   By bullets, by bombs, by nooses?  NO…  by requiring a free photo ID to secure their vote. Let me say that again – By requiring a free ID to secure the vote. How absolutely preposterous!  Am I to believe that black Americans who have overcome the atrocities of slavery, who were victorious in the Civil Rights movement, and who now sit in the highest level of this government cannot figure out how to get a FREE ID to secure their votes?  Am I to believe that they need to be coddled by politicians because we can’t figure out how to make our voices be heard?  Are you kidding me??  The notion that black people must be protected from a free ID to secure their votes is not only insane, it is insulting. This has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with power.” 


The presidential election of 2016, and especially the presidential election of 2020, exposed numerous flaws in the United States’ election procedures. Across the nation, polling mechanisms, the design of election ballots, voting rules, hours, and allocation of financial resources vary significantly between states and localities. In many jurisdictions utilizing older types of voting equipment (such as punch-card machines) ballots were disqualified at significantly higher rates than in jurisdictions employing more accurate and reliable equipment (such as optical scan machines). Moreover, due to the lack of legislative prioritization for funding of election administration, officials in many states and localities do not have the resources to hire adequate numbers of election workers and conduct meaningful voter education programs. Additionally, in some instances, efforts to purge ineligible voters from registration rolls (including those who have died, moved, or been sentenced as felons) have resulted in the mistaken elimination of fully eligible voters from registration rolls. Finally, we can’t forget that the 2020 presidential election allowed a number of additional votes to be cast because of the pandemic.

Election laws that place high burdens of proof on the voter, combined with inadequate checks and balances in these systems in place on Election Day, have made it difficult for aggrieved voters to obtain redress, and the inadequacy of election laws (which seem to only be getting worse and worse) make it incredibly difficult for those alleging voter and election fraud to have reported incidents investigated.

Complaining about the 2020 election without offering and enacting remedies doesn’t fix anything. It only adds to our collective frustration with our overly-ambitious (and scheming) political parties and with those voters without character, morals, or ethics who are willing to cheat the system.

Our American tradition teaches us that the process of choosing leaders is not a privilege, but a collective responsibility. We teach in our schools that we have a civic duty to be informed and to vote. Voting is the most democratic element of our constitutional republic – “the voice of the people.”

In order to restore confidence in the integrity and fairness of our nation’s election process, government agencies at the federal, state and local levels must work together to evaluate the various components of our electoral system. And then each of those government systems should take any necessary and all appropriate steps to strengthen and/or change policy at the federal, state and local levels to ensure that all persons wishing to vote are given a meaningful opportunity to do so, and all votes determined to be valid in accordance with established fair standards are counted accordingly. Congress and other government agencies should assess approaches that aim to ensure fairness with regard to casting and counting of votes, including, but not limited to, the implementation of a uniform nationwide poll closing time and uniform standards for counting disputed ballots within individual states.

When we think of voting, we instinctively assume that we have the RIGHT to vote. And I contend, with absolute certainty, that we indeed possess that right. There are several, however, who comment that there is no explicit right to vote in the US Constitution. And there are groups which advocate that the time has come to amend the Constitution to finally include such an express declaration of that right.

Why do I say that we absolutely have the right to vote? 

We all know, or should know, that the united States of America was founded as a republic. The definition of “republic” is: “a state in which supreme power is held by the people and theirelected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.”  It is arguably a given that we have the right to vote. Representatives cannot be “elected” if the people don’t have the right to elect them (ie, vote for the candidate of their choice). Our US Constitution, through several of its amendments (Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Six) assures that no citizen under the age of 18 can be denied this right. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence, which lays out the principles of freedom and liberty, and the foundational philosophy for government in the American colonies, reads: “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.”  In other words, we have, each in our own State, a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” and it is certainly assumed that “of the people” means that ordinary citizens are selected (ie, elected) “by the people” (through a voting process).


WHEREAS, the United States was founded upon the principle of self-government in which the right to vote is the most important and fundamental right of the people, and;

WHEREAS, the right to vote is inherent in the fact that the united States of America was established as a republic (a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives…).

WHERERAS, the Declaration of Independence clearly and expressly states that our States, and by extension our country, is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”  {Exact wording: “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….’]

WHEREAS, our Founding Fathers thought that the right to vote was critical to our form of government, and viewed it as a virtually sacred act.

  • For example, Samuel Adams, the leader of the Boston Sons of Liberty and one of our most active and passionate of Founding Fathers had this to say about the right, and indeed, the duty, to vote: “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.]  Adams also said: “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote…that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” 
  • Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and a main author of The Federalist Papers, 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.”
  • Thomas Jefferson, certainly one of our greatest Founder and the author of our Declaration of Independence, wrote: “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.
  • And finally, John Jay, one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers and appointed to the bench of the very first US Supreme Court, said: “The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government under which they should live.”

WHEREAS, 18th-century American lexicographer, Noah Webster said: “…If the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.” 

WHEREAS, our US Bill of Rights, and our state Bill of Rights (Declaration of Rights), requires the government to protect and secure the Natural Law Rights of the sovereign States and their sovereign citizens. The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments specifically protect a citizen’s right to vote. Free and secure elections are the only way to preserve faith in government and individual freedom.

WHEREAS, the right to vote is an INDIVIDUAL right and not a COLLECTIVE right. While we indeed have a constitutional republic as our system of government, there are some democratic elements associated with it and the biggest one is our power at the ballot box to choose the representatives that comprise our “people’s government.”

WHEREAS, the nation’s state Secretaries of State are responsible for protecting an individual’s right to vote by ensuring access, accuracy and integrity in elections.

WHEREAS, the conduct of elections is primarily the responsibility of state and local election officials, while the right to vote for federal officials is governed by the US Constitution (see Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.”).  In the case United States v. Classic (1941), the Supreme Court held that the right to vote for Members of Congress is derived from the Federal Constitution. Congress may use its power under this clause, combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate the times, places, and manner of electing Members of Congress so as to fully safeguard the integrity of the process. Article II (Sections 1-4) address the election of the President of the United States (see below).

WHEREAS, America’s voting systems and election procedures must ensure that all votes are counted accurately and that voting is as, convenient, accessible and secure as possible.

WHEREAS, our collective expertise with election issues and our strong commitment to fair, secure and accurate elections will enhance our democratic process.

US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE II (The Executive Branch), Sections 1-4

Clause 1.  The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2.  Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3.  The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Clause 4.  The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


Hans A. von Spakovsky, “9 Election Reforms States Can Implement to Prevent Mistakes and Voter Fraud,” The Heritage Foundation, February 2, 2021.  Referenced at:

Professor Edmund R. Kallina (Univ. of Central Florida), “Was the 1960 Presidential Election Stolen? The Case of Illinois,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vo. 15, No. 1 (Inaugurating the President /Winter 1985), pp. 113-118. 

John R. Lott, Jr., “Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic?”, IMPRIMIS (a publication of Hillsdale College), October 2021. Referenced at:

NC Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson Addresses the NC House Committee on the Judiciary, YouTube video, April 22, 2021.  Referenced at:   

“Voter Fraud Map: Election Fraud Database,” The Heritage Foundation, 2020.  Referenced at:

“More Resources on Election Integrity,” The Heritage Foundation.  Referenced at:

Role of Congress in Regulating Federal Elections –

US Constitution, Article II –

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Progressive Indoctrination in Public Schools Takes Many Forms

by Diane Rufino, November 17, 2021

Whoever controls the education of our children controls the future.”  — Wilma Mankiller

North Carolina’s state constitution, in Article IX, section 1 (“Education Encouraged”), reads: “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

The state constitution, just like the US Constitution, assigns powers to the government and serves the citizens of North Carolina by setting boundaries and limitations on its government, as well as by listing the ways it will serve them. Since I moved to North Carolina, I have taken notice of the phrase “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” and thought to myself ‘What a great state!’ That is certainly the kind of education I expected for my children in the public school system.

Why haven’t the General Assembly, the NC DPI, and local school boards read that provision and why hasn’t it guided their decision-making? Looking at what is going on in NC schools and what is coming down the pipes to be included in the classrooms, it’s certainly clear that they all have completely ignored that promise to the citizens of North Carolina.  

It’s not enough to think of liberal/progressive indoctrination in our public school systems as only Critical Race Theory. In fact, there are so many different forms, so many distinct ways to get the same progressive teaching to our children. For example, there are panoramic surveys, identity surveys, data-mining surveys, equity indoctrination, social emotional learning lessons (SEL), health classes on alternative life styles and alternative sex education, diversity education (diversity lessons), lessons on such progressive social issues as transgenderism, gender fluidity, pronoun choice, and the list goes on.

Remember, the brains of school-age children have not finished developing. They can’t process, analyze, appreciate, or comprehend the consequences of the adult topics that are being forced on them through progressive policies, doctrines, and teachings. The mere suggestion of socially progressive issues to , especially regarding racism and transgenderism, to a child or teen can cause them confusion and send them questioning their biological identity and their role in society (as defined by what people two centuries ago did to one another). In education, we hear about education standards and how they must align with a child’s brain development. That’s because we want our children to be able to absorb the particular lesson, process it, and learn it. How does the teaching of racism, transgenderism, gender fluidity, alternative sex education, panoramic surveys, social emotional learning align with a young child’s brain development and ability to process?

Children are supposed to receive their grounding, their foundation, during their formative, school-age years, from their parents, their families, their church, and yes, from the permanent and unchanging laws of science, in particular Biology.

What are these different progressive education policies, practices, doctrines, teachings?

Critical Race Theory

Christopher Rufo, who works with the Heritage Foundation and is an expert on the subject, describes Critical Race Theory (CRT) this way:  “Critical race theory is the idea that the United States is a fundamentally racist country and that all of our institutions including the law, culture, business, the economy are all designed to maintain white supremacy. And the critical race theorists argue that all of these institutions are in a sense beyond reforming, they really need to be completely dismantled in order to liberate the oppressed people.”

Simply put, Critical Race Theory states that U.S. social institutions – the criminal justice system, education system, labor market, housing market, and healthcare system – are laced with racism embedded in laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that lead to differential outcomes by race. CRT teaches that white society created such systemic racism for their own advantage.

Critical Race Theory is a policy or plan to have educators and administrators in our North Carolina public school system emphasize RACE and how racism is inherent and prevalent in our society and in our country as a whole – whether intentional, unintentional, direct, subtle, incidental, or systemic. And by emphasizing it and teaching it to our children, they are indoctrinating them also to focus on race and to see things in terms of race. We’re talking about children whose brains are not yet fully developed and who are especially vulnerable and susceptible to what is taught to them. As we all know, discrimination and racism go back to the days of slavery and then the Jim Crow era, and apparently to progressives and Democrats, the discrimination still continues. In fact, they say, it’s now engrained into our system.

Inherent in Critical Race Theory is the notion that whites are “privileged” in this county and therefore somehow bad; they are seen as “oppressors” who overwhelmingly benefit in our society. And blacks continue to be victims of discrimination and systemic racism; they continue to be the oppressed.

This, in essence, is what Critical Race Theory is all about…. A system, a society comprised of “oppressors” and the “oppressed.” Whiteness is bad, blackness confers victimhood.  Some inherently benefit from this system and others inherently are discriminated against. This is what is being promoted in our public schools, at least in certain ones (certainly all the ones in the Wake County School system), but it is looking like the policy will catch on with other school systems in the state. I don’t see what good the policy does or what good it could possibly achieve.

In our state of North Carolina, CRT a plan to have educators and administrators in our public school system emphasize RACE and how racism is inherent and prevalent in our society and in our country as a whole – whether intentional, unintentional, direct, subtle, incidental, or systemic. And by emphasizing it and teaching it to our children, they are indoctrinating them also to focus on race and to see things in terms of race. We’re talking about children whose brains are not yet fully developed and who are especially vulnerable and susceptible to what is taught to them.

School policies, and especially new “Biden era” curriculum standards (social studies, for one) include its teachings or depending on the state, include elements of CRT, which most school board members have never taken the time to read through.  CRT is being taught in North Carolina public schools, to varying degrees, depending on the school system. Wake County is the worst.

I find this next part is particularly offensive and subversive: 

Critical Race Theory gives educators the ultimate authority to encourage students to “view problems and issues through the lens of race” and therefore takes the task of raising our children and influencing them away from their parents and puts them in their hands. It is an insidious policy that is based on self-shaming, continued victimization, and hatred and shame for our country.

Some people – and I’m talking about Democrats, progressives, Marxists, leftists, the Black Lives Matter movement – see racism everywhere. The idea that America is fundamentally flawed because some people harbor racism in their hearts and minds and that this equates to systemic racism is ridiculous. It’s absolutely preposterous and demeaning to white people and insulting to our system of laws and our history of judicial rulings. We, as Americans, have abolished slavery, abolished segregation, and have gone as far as to institute affirmative action policies in almost all areas of education and business. Back in the 1860’s, we adopted the Reconstruction era constitutional amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th), in 1953, the Supreme Court handed down the Brown v. Board of Education ruling ending school segregation, and in the 1960’s, Congress passed civil rights legislation – the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That’s a history of a country recognizing its past sins and wanting to do the right thing. This is what should be taught and emphasized in our schools.

I love this comment that one parent gave: “My parents always told me that it doesn’t matter whether people like you; it matters whether or not the law protects you, and it does.”

And I also love the remarks that US Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) gave last night following President Biden’s address to Congress. He said: “America is not a racist country. It’s backwards to fight discrimination with different types of discrimination, and it’s wrong to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.” 

Rep. Scott also said: “We embrace traditional American values. We love people, not parties. We love the content of one’s character, not the color of one’s skin. Our nation stands in greatness because we fought back against the darker angels and we believed in the better angels.  I wish the Democrats would look in the mirror and ask themselves: ‘Would they put up with such conduct from anyone other than themselves?’  If they aren’t willing to police themselves, don’t look to the other side.”

Teaching Critical Race Theory in the North Carolina public schools is not a product of any bill or policy adopted by the NC General Assembly or by an executive order issued by Governor Cooper. It is a policy that was initiated, embraced, and adopted by teachers themselves. From what I’ve read, it was adopted by teachers in the Wake County School system last year. (I should mention that a form of Race Theory was officially articulated back in 1989).

If you want an eye-opener regarding Critical Race Theory and how it has made its way into North Carolina’s public school system, check out this informative article, titled “Subversive Education,” written by Christopher Rufo on March 17 of this year for City Journal:

North Carolina’s largest school district launches a campaign against “whiteness in educational spaces.”

Last year, the Wake County Public School System, which serves the greater Raleigh, North Carolina area, held an equity-themed teachers’ conference with sessions on “whiteness,” “microaggressions,” “racial mapping,” and “disrupting texts,” encouraging educators to form “equity teams” in schools and push the new party line: “antiracism.”

The February 2020 conference, attended by more than 200 North Carolina public school teachers, began with a “land acknowledgement,” a ritual recognition suggesting that white North Carolinians are colonizers on stolen Native American land. Next, the superintendent of Wake County Public Schools, Cathy Moore, introduced the day’s program and shuffled teachers to breakout sessions across eight rooms. Freelance reporter A.P. Dillon obtained the documents from the sessions through a public records request and provided them to City Journal.

At the first session, “Whiteness in Education Spaces,” school administrators provided two handouts on the “norms of whiteness.” These documents claimed that “(white) cultural values” include “denial,” “fear,” “blame,” “control,” “punishment,” “scarcity,” and “one-dimensional thinking.” According to notes from the session, the teachers argued that “whiteness perpetuates the system” of injustice and that the district’s “whitewashed curriculum” was “doing real harm to our students and educators.” The group encouraged white teachers to “challenge the dominant ideology” of whiteness and “disrupt” white culture in the classroom through a series of “transformational interventions.”

Parents, according to the teachers, should be considered an impediment to social justice. When one teacher asked, “How do you deal with parent pushback?” the answer was clear: ignore parental concerns and push the ideology of antiracism directly to students. “You can’t let parents deter you from the work,” the teachers said. “White parents’ children are benefiting from the system” of whiteness and are “not learning at home about diversity (LGBTQ, race, etc.).” Therefore, teachers have an obligation to subvert parental wishes and beliefs. Any “pushback,” the teachers explained, is merely because white parents fear “that they are going to lose something” and find it “hard to let go of power [and] privilege.”

And so, the Wake County Public School district adopted an official EQUITY IN ACTION plan.

The Equity in Action plan encourages teachers to override parents in the pursuit of antiracism. “Equity leaders [should] have the confidence to take risks and make difficult decisions that are rooted in their values,” the document reads. “Even in the face of opposition, equity leaders can draw on a heartfelt conviction for what is best for students and families.” In other words, the school should displace the family as the ultimate arbiter of political morality.

The equity plan outlines this new ideology in chart format, announcing the district’s commitment to a series of fashionable instructional techniques, including “color consciousness,” “white identity development,” “critical race theory,” “intersections of power and privilege,” and “anti-racist identity and action.”

The equity program in the Wake County Public School System is a massive enterprise. Founded in 2013, the district’s Office of Equity Affairs has now amassed a $1 million annual budget and hosts an ongoing sequence of school trainings, curriculum-development sessions, and teacher events. In 2019, for example, the office hosted a series of “courageous conversations” about race and a five-night discussion program about the podcast Seeing White, which asks listeners to consider how “whiteness” contributes to “police shootings of unarmed African Americans,” “acts of domestic terrorism,” and “unending racial inequity in schools, housing, criminal justice, and hiring.”

According to Wake County Public Schools, the purpose of these programs is to achieve “equity,” which it defines as “eliminating the predictability of success and failure that correlates with any social or cultural factor.” This is naïve, at best. Cultural traits such as family environment, transmitted values, and study habits have an enormous influence on academic outcomes. The radical-left educators believe that this is an injustice. They see their job as leveling cultural differences, grouping students into the categories of inborn identity, and equalizing outcomes.

The administrators have the logic backwards. Rather than seek to level cultural factors, they should seek to uncover and then cultivate the cultural traits that lead to academic success across all racial groups. Despite all the recent focus on racial issues in education, the greater disparity in student outcomes today is, in fact, related to social class. As Stanford’s Sean Reardon has shown, the class gap in academic achievement is now twice as large as the race gap—precisely the opposite of what it was 50 years ago.

This news should suggest an opportunity to school administrators. They could pursue educational strategies that help struggling students of all racial backgrounds. Sadly, rather than seizing this opportunity, teachers in Wake County are busy planning conference presentations on “toxic masculinity,” “microaggressions,” “peace circles,” and “applied critical race theory.” North Carolina might be a red state, but in its largest county, the school system has fully bought in to the latest progressive dogmas.

[**** City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank].

Parents across the U.S. should not assume that their local district is immune to these trends. The new political education is spreading everywhere.

There are many problems with Critical Race Theory. I will address only a few of such problems:

1).  Critical Race Theory is a racist doctrine that is being incorporated into the classroom to do nothing more than perpetuate racism, division, suspicion, and hatred among our next generation of American citizens.

2).  Critical Race Theory is a policy that amounts to INDOCTRINATION in the public school system. The school system was never meant to be a place that indoctrinates our children; it was never meant to supplant the role of the parents or the family in the upbringing of their children or the impressions of their minds. The role – the ONLY role – of the school system is to provide children an honest and accurate education.

3).  A Critical Race Theory Plan (or whatever the name they choose to give it) transforms the primary goal of a teacher – from basic education to mind control. It gives teachers too much opportunity to shape a student’s views on social and political issues rather than being one who strictly instructs in the core subjects.  Again, “whoever controls the education of our children controls the future.”  How does it become the school’s job to perpetuate racism and teach children to “view problems and issues through the lens of race?”  

4).  Critical Race Theory has no place in our taxpayer-funded schools. All white people are not racists and hardly anyone is a white supremacist, and not all black people are oppressed and discriminated against. How dare our public schools teach racism to our children (again, while they are still at a vulnerable age). The truth is that success in life is based on a lot of things, such as a stable home life, having two committed parents, study habits, ambition, support from parents, who the child associates with, morals and values, peer pressure, drug usage, access to technology, and yes, even religion…. but the color of one’s skin isn’t really one of them.  How can we ever hope to teach true equality to our children and take pride in the fact that we have been able to overcome discrimination and segregation over the many years by all legal and constitutional means possible when we plan to teach that it will never be possible because of structural racism. We can’t have it both ways.

(5)  Mr. Derrick Wilburn, the founder and Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives, and a devout Christian, addressed a local school board regarding Race and Critical Race Theory on August 12 and made the perfect case against racism and against the incorporation of Critical Race Theory in the school system. These were his remarks:

I’d like to begin my comments this evening by reading a quote which, in essence, is the genesis of the whole black lives matter, critical race theory, social justice discussions we are having in our country today. Quote: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” Colin Kaepernick, 2016.

I am the direct descendant of the North American slave trade. Both my parents are black, all four of my grandparents are black, all eight of my great grandparents were black, all 16 of my great great greats were black. On my mother’s side, my ancestors were enslaved in Alabama, and on my father’s side, my ancestors were enslaved in Texas. I am not oppressed. I’m not oppressed, and I’m not a victim. I’m either oppressed nor a victim.

I travel all across this country of ours, and I check into hotels and I fly commercially, and I walk into retail establishments, and I order food in restaurants. I go wherever I want whenever I want. I am treated with kindness, dignity, and respect literally from coast to coast.

I have three children. They are not oppressed either, although they are victims. I’ve taught my children they are victims of three things: their own ignorance, their own laziness, and their own poor decision making. That is all.

We are not victims of America. We are not victims of some unseen 190-year-old force that floats around in the ether. Putting Critical Race Theory into our classrooms is taking our nation in the wrong direction. Racism in America would, by and large, be dead today if it were not for certain people and institutions keeping it on life support. And sadly, sadly, very sadly, one of those institutions is the American education system.

I can think of nothing more damaging to a society than to tell a baby born today that she has grievances against another baby born today simply because of what their ancestors may have done two centuries ago. There is simply no point in doing that to our children. And putting Critical Race Theory into our classrooms, in part, does that. Putting Critical Race Theory into our classrooms is not combating racism; it is fanning the flames of what little embers are left. I encourage you to support this resolution. LET RACISM DIE THE DEATH IT DESERVES.”

As the group Parents Defending Education says: “We are so proud to defend what we do, because it is simple. We believe that schools should teach children that the child that they are sitting next to, no matter their color, their religion, or their identity, is a person just like them, and that they are their friend, and we need to be nice to them.”

(6).  The teaching of Critical Race Theory is unconstitutional according to several constitutional principles and theories. It violates the Fourteenth Amendment (“Equal Protection” Clause), the First Amendment (“compelled speech”), and violates the NC state constitution as well (Article I, sections 1, 5, 14, 19). Additionally, CRT is inconsistent with civil rights laws, specifically the Civil Rights Act (1964). Finally, it is inconsistent with the key phrase in the Declaration of Independence – “all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights.”

According to the legal opinion of Montana’s Attorney General, teaching a theory that holds whites are inherently racist and blacks are systemically discriminated against by them is unconstitutional (Equal Protection Clause) and violates the federal Civil Rights law. For that reason, he believes there is comprehensive justification for banning teaching the theory in schools. And 25 other states agree. They’ve introduced bills or taken other steps to prevent CRT from being taught in their public schools.

CRT clearly discriminates “on the basis of race, color, or national origin,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and various sections (Article I) of the NC constitution. Training programs, teachings, or assignments which force students or employees to admit, accept, affirm, or support controversial concepts such as privilege, culpability, identity, or status, constitute “compelled speech,” which is something the First Amendment forbids the government from forcing people to do.

If a public institution such as a school tries to restrict people’s speech or behavior, it may be also a First Amendment violation.

But don’t think that concerned parents haven’t become “mamma bears” over this issue and that concerned citizens haven’t joined in for the fight against the dishonest and perverse indoctrination of our next generation. As of the end of August of this year, statistics tell their story:

  • Eight states (Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, and South Carolina) have passed legislation. Interestingly though, none of these state bills actually mention the words “critical race theory” explicitly, with the exception of Idaho.
  • The legislations mostly ban the discussion, training, and/or orientation that the U.S. is inherently racist as well as any discussions about conscious and unconscious bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression. These parameters also extend beyond race to include gender lectures and discussions.
  • Nearly 20 additional states have introduced or plan to introduce similar legislation.
  • North Carolina attempted to pass such a bill – TWICE – and finally did on May 12 of this year (H.B. 324) but Governor Roy Cooper, acting against the voice and will of the people, vetoed it.
  • State reps in Montana and South Dakota have denounced teaching concepts associated with CRT.
  • The state school boards in Florida, Georgia, Utah, and Oklahoma introduced new guidelines barring CRT-related discussions.
  • Local school boards in Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia also criticized CRT. (Opposition continues to grow)

You can find a summary of this legislation, we well as a summary of the actions of state school boards and local school boards against CRT, at the end of the article referenced at this link:

Meanwhile, back in August, a group of Republican attorneys general from 20 states sent the Biden administration a 10-page letter chastising federal officials for using two grant programs as “a thinly veiled attempt at bringing into our states’ classrooms the deeply-flawed and controversial teachings of Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project.”

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) is trying to prevent the Biden administration from forcing the U.S. military from incorporating elements of what he characterizes as critical race theory in its training programs and 30 House Republicans, led by North Carolina’s own Rep. Dan Bishop,  have also signed onto an effort to ban Critical Race Theory from training for the armed services and federal employees.

The origins of these push-back efforts go back to President Donald Trump, who warned about the implementation of such a divisive policy during his final months in office, in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer. The Trump administration called CRT “un-American” and sought to ban its influence from the federal government.

Critical Race Theory has become adopted by almost every and any agency or department, or group, that associates itself with public education as well as with the government. For example, the APA (American Psychology Association) has this statement on its homepage: “On October 29, 2021, the APA Council of Representatives passed three resolutions which include acknowledging and apologizing for APA’s role in promoting and perpetuating racism and racial discrimination in the U.S.; the role of psychology and APA in dismantling systemic racism in the U.S.; and advancing health equity in psychology.” [ ]

Have the collective lost their minds?  Sanity apparently has left the country.

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) –

First came the denouncements of school district diversity, equity and inclusion programs, critical race theory, panoramic and other progressive identity surveys. Now, and rightfully so, suspicions are being directed at social and emotional learning.

Social-emotional learning (SEL) is the “warm fuzzy” of education. Is an education practice that integrates social and emotional skills into school curriculum. SEL is also referred to as “socio-emotional learning”, “social and emotional learning”, or “social-emotional literacy”  National University explains it this way:

As an educator, some of the worst things you can hear a student say is, “This is stupid,” or “Why are we learning this?” Think back to when you were in school and the subjects that caused you the most frustration. You’d likely find some common ground with your students in wishing you were given clear reasons why something was important and how learning a subject or skill would benefit you now, as well as years later. That frustration and finding constructive ways to deal with emotions and interact with one another in respectful ways are just a few of the guiding principles behind social emotional learning.

Social emotion learning, if you believe what the progressive education gurus tell you, helps school officials find out about students’ emotions and social awareness in order to help them manage in the public education setting.  How do school officials gather this information?  They pass out a survey, a series of very personal questions asking about the child’s outlook, emotional status, gender status, home life, religious status, relationship with mother, relationship with father, inquiring if there is both a mother and father, asking how much time he or she spends alone at home without a parent in the house, asking if daddy hits mommy, asking if the child has been abused by a parent, asking if there is a gun in the house, asking if the child has had sexual relations and if so, with how many partners, asking if the student needs to speak to a counselor, etc.  The questions, aside from being very (and unnecessarily) probative, intrude most directly on a child’s right to privacy and the right of his or her parents to safeguard the information that the public school (and by extension, the government) collects. (Violation of privacy and a violation of parental rights). But the questions don’t stop with an inquiry as to the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. They ask unacceptable questions about sexuality and gender (unacceptable for the age and development of school-age children) as well as questions that can be used to report the child and the family to the departments of social services and to the local law enforcement agencies.

Social and emotional learning, which is essentially a program of in-school psychological training, has become the major vehicle for teaching the tenets of Critical Race Theory and the LGBTQ agenda.

The good news is that parents have woken up. They have realized that these SEL questionnaires and surveys are nothing more than a progressive’s way of using “identity” surveys as a cover for their agenda to push and “progress” social norms to the next generation. Some say schools are overstepping by teaching these concepts, a lament shared on T-shirts worn by protesting residents at a recent Cherokee school board meeting that proclaimed,

One parent attended a school board meeting with a tee shirt that read: “I don’t co-parent with the government.”

Give a progressive school board an inch and it will take a mile. Give government an inch and it will take a mile. We all know their long-term goal –  to replace the role of the parent with that of the school system and with teachers, and to replace common sense, moral, family values with the values of progressivism.

Why are parents opposing such SEL policies?  Many see them for what they are. Many refer to them an “a dangerous experiment, a dangerous social experiment. And most are opposed to their inclusion in their children’s education because they believe that while the time the education system gets to educate and prepare children for higher education and/or to go out in the world to become a meaningful and productive member of society is short enough, there should be no time to teach about feelings and no time for indoctrination. Teachers should be focusing on what public schools were intended to do – teach CONTENT. That’s what parents expect. They don’t send their children to school for social-emotion-psychological nurturing.  School isn’t about group therapy. As a parent from Georgia explained: “I don’t send my child to school to learn someone else’s definition of morals, values, empathy.”

Apparently, funding often plays a big part in SEL policies.  Funding comes from federal COVID-19 Schools Relief package.  Many school districts will plan to increase their emphasis on social emotional learning in order to get federal dollars. Follow the money !

The bottom line is that SEL inquiries are outside the scope of acceptable assignments for school-age children. It is not the role of a school system to question a child’s mental or emotional well-being, to teach morality, to shape a child’s character, to emphasize sex, or to introduce confusion regarding a child’s gender and sexual orientation. All of these issues belong at home with the parents, with the family, and yes, even with the church.

Panoramic Surveys –  

Panorama Surveys, which are a series of carefully-designed questions, are designed to pull students’ information together in one report apparently to give the school system insight into their individual identity, their emotional status and vulnerability, and psychological status and vulnerability for the purpose of helping to “improving student outcomes.”  The explanation sold to parents and to the community is that Panorama surveys provide a valid and reliable way “to measure and improve social-emotional learning (SEL) in the public school system.”  Social emotion learning is addressed below.

Such surveys are being given to students in public schools all across the country, including in North Carolina.

Sloan Rachmuth, founder and president of Education First Alliance, NC stands firm on this fundamental parental right: “No parent should ever fear unlawful surveillance of their families in public schools, especially from those charged with educating and caring for their children – yet that is exactly what’s happening.”  

The NC Department of Instruction (NCDPI) has partnered with NC Health and Human Services (NCHSS) in operating the insidious program known as “Social Emotional Learning” (SEL) which has been explained above. SEL and Panorama have an incestuous relationship; SEL requires invasive Panorama Surveys to be administered to 1.5 million public school children via a software program attached to their student identifier number. Children are asked questions about their happiness, their satisfaction with their classes, with their teachers, their assignments, their sexuality, race, nationality, and about their lifestyles and safety at home. As if these series of questions aren’t enough, school-age children are also asked to complete a psychiatric evaluation.

On its website, Education First Alliance explains Panorama in North Carolina schools:

NC’s version of SEL is deceptively named, however. Upon closer inspection of how the program works, the “learning” part of SEL is partly on the part of the students and partially on the part of the school state who are using questionnaires to peel copious amounts of private information out of school-aged children, all in the name of tailoring their classroom experience.

According to CASEL’s  program literature, the program contains critical race theory teachings such as avoiding “White racial entitlement and dominance,” prioritizes  developing student and parental “critical social awareness,” and cites problems with teachers being “middle-class White women.

[The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI), which is the State School Board, announced in June 2020 that it would be partnering with The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) to “meet the SEL [social emotional learning] needs of students and staff.”

Children are protected by gross invasions of privacy by Federal and State Laws which require parental notification and consent prior to student surveys data collection is supposed to be aggregated. Yet that has not always happened in the many school districts across North Carolina.  In Pitt County, for example, many parents were never notified prior to schools giving Panorama Surveys. In one case, a parent called the principal to opt their child out of these surveys and after the principal agreed, she coerced the child into taking the survey the following day. The message given?  The school system knows, moreso than the parents, know what is best for their child. 

In other cases, school Superintendents have lied to elected school board members – giving them a FAKE survey to conceal their nefarious plans.

Education First has submitted the following questions to the NC DPI, which to date, have not been answered:

  • Why are children’s data identified and attached to their student ID?
  • Why are Principals using coercion and dishonesty to make students take these surveys?
  • Why is a foreign organization with ties to the Chinese government paying for these surveys?
  • Why is NC Department of Health involved with collecting mental health data of public school children?
  • Will NCDPI force medical or psychological treatment on white children to achieve its equity goals?
  • Since some districts are not allowing parents to object to surveys, will schools give drugs to children without the knowledge of parents?

Sloan Rachmuth and Education First Alliance are asking parents and concerned citizens to join them in calling on the NCDPI and the NC General Assembly to STOP funding  the Panorama Survey program and to fully dismantle it.  And to do the same for the SEL Program and the Office of Equity Affairs (Durham County). Panorama, SEL, and the Office of Equity Affairs comprise North Carolina’s “Child Spying Program.”

The millions spent on these confusing, borderline useless, and non-essential programs would be far better spent by investing in the actual purpose of public education – actual EDUCATION !!  Another thought is to use that money to invest in gifted student education. We always hear about diversity in education, as if that criteria is of supreme importance, yet we never hear about investment in STEM programs or “gifted student” education. STEM programs and programs for more gifted students are the gold standards of public education.

Equity & Inclusion Programs  (Advancing Racial Equality and Social Justice) –

We have all been taught that the United States stands for Equality. It’s addressed in our Constitution, through its many amendments. Martin Luther King Jr., as well as Robert Kennedy Jr, fought very publicly for equality in the 1960’s. Some even believe that each was assassinated because of their activism. Equality implies tolerance and acceptance. It implies a color-blind approach to everything. 

Equity in education is the process of reforming practices, policies, and procedures at the school and district levels to support academic fairness and inclusion and ensure that every child has the resources, teachers, interventions, and supports they need to be successful. Equity is giving specific resources and support to disadvantaged students to bring them up to the same opportunity level as their peers. Equity is determined on a student-by-student basis. As Dr. Keith Bell explains: “In more simple terms, ‘those who need more get more.”

Equality, on the other hand, refers to the principle that every student receives the same access to education, the same resources, teachers, and support needed to be successful. Equality is providing the same opportunities to all students.

Equity is not the same as equality.  The West Hartford Public School System (WHPS) in Connecticut (a very progressive state) explains why it stresses equity over equality. “The fact is tolerance is not justice. It isn’t a sufficient description of the work we do or of the world we want.”

The website of WHPS states as its “Vision for Equity and Anti-Racism”:

We, the members of West Hartford Public Schools, dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of equity. Equitable schools are those that value and honor ALL in our community as unique individuals capable of maximizing their true potential. We make a solemn promise to identify and dismantle all elements of systemic racism and historical inequities. We vow to clear paths, with a relentless duty to those in traditionally marginalized groups. We pledge to partner with ALL families in the service of the success of each child.

Most of the student groups who apparently cannot receive or appreciate the same opportunities as their peers are minorities and those who come from a broken and impoverished home. The most commonly-referenced underserved student groups are students who are from ethnic and/or racial minority backgrounds (mostly blacks and Hispanics), low-income backgrounds, students with disabilities, or those who are first-generation English Language Learners (ELL) – again mostly Hispanic. Other groups apparently needing “equity” in education include LGBT students, foster students, transgender students, students whose parent(s) don’t have a college degree, students in remote rural areas, students who have no access to computers, and more.

Equity is applied not only to disadvantaged children, to children from disadvantaged families (if there is even a family) and to mal-adjusted children (socially, psychologically, and gender-wise), which would be classified under the banner of “Opportunity Gap,” but also to those groups of students who suffer an “Achievement Gap,” including low graduation rates.

As should be evident from this article and overview of the various progressive doctrines in our nation’s public school system, many are inter-related. They support each other. For example, The Panoramic, or Identity, Surveys adopted by The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) includes five social, emotional learning (SEL) competencies (categories) to organize students’ intrapersonal and interpersonal knowledge, skills, and abilities. CASEL views these competencies as “interrelated and integral to the growth and development of students.” In 2019, CASEL updated the definition of each competency to explicitly address SEL as a lever for creating equitable learning environments and fostering healthy development for all children, adolescents, and adults.

It’s hypocritical that when it comes to “equity in education,” schools are happy and content to rely on parents who have been college-educated to supplement their child’s education (so they can spend more on the “less-fortunate” students) yet at the same time view informed and concerned parents as nuisances and “potential terrorists” who should be kept under the surveillance of law enforcement.

Where are the additional opportunities and the investments in “accelerated” students and other gifted students?

Finally, to understand the push of such Panorama surveys in the public school system, follow the money.  (Go to the reference and link at the end of the article).

LGBTQ Agenda

Over the past 10-15 years, there has been a movement to teach children in the public school system to be tolerant of and to be respectful of gay and lesbian individuals. It’s a movement that LBGBTQ activists call “queering the schools.” While the teaching of tolerance and respect are good and Christian ideals, incorporating the “gay” agenda in doing so strains the understanding of parents of school-age children. And especially when such policies are now going down to the elementary school level.

Parents resent the school’s attempt to undermine the role of parents in the socialization of their children. They resent the school’s attempt to undermine the biblical values they teach at home. They resent the school’s attempt to force acceptance of progressive thinking on them.

From an article in the City Journal (“Queering the Schools,” 2003):

At a high school in prosperous Newton, Massachusetts, it’s “To B GLAD Day”—or, less delicately, Transgender, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian Awareness Day. An advocacy session for students and teachers features three self-styled transgendered individuals—a member of the senior class and two recent graduates. One of the transgenders, born female, announces that “he” had been taking hormones for 16 months. “Right now I am a 14-year-old boy going through puberty and a 55-year-old woman going through menopause,” she complains. “I am probably the moodiest person in the world.” A second panelist declares herself an “androgyne in between both genders of society.” She adds, “Gender is just a bunch of stereotypes from society, but I am completely personal, and my gender is fluid.” Massachusetts is the most advanced state when it comes to educational equity for LGBT people, and that despite its being largely Catholic and having a Republican governor

Only in liberal Massachusetts could a public school endorse such an event for teens, you might think. But you would be wrong. For the last decade or so, largely working beneath public or parental notice, a well-organized movement has sought to revolutionize the curricula and culture of the nation’s public schools. Its aim: to stamp out “hegemonic heterosexuality”—the traditional view that heterosexuality is the norm—in favor of a new ethos that does not just tolerate homosexuality but instead actively endorses experimenting with it, as well as with a polymorphous range of bisexuality, transgenderism, and transsexuality. The educational establishment has enthusiastically signed on. What this portends for the future of the public schools and the psychic health of the nation’s children is deeply worrisome.

This movement to “queer” the public schools, as activists put it, originated with a shift in the elite understanding of homosexuality. During the eighties, when gay activism first became a major cultural force, homosexual leaders launched a campaign that mirrored the civil rights movement. To claim their rights, homosexuals argued (without scientific evidence) that their orientation was a genetic inheritance, like race, and thus deserved the same kind of civil protections the nation had guaranteed to blacks. An inborn, unchangeable fact, after all, could not be subject to moral disapproval. There ensued a successful effort to normalize homosexuality throughout the culture, including a strong push for homosexual marriage, gays in the military, and other signs of civic equality.

Leading the movement to introduce the radical view of sexuality, promoted by “Queer theorists,” into the public schools is the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN, pronounced “glisten”), an advocacy group founded in 1993 to promote homosexual issues in the public schools. It now boasts 85 chapters, four regional offices, and some 1,700 student clubs, called “gay/straight alliances,” that it has helped form in schools across the country. GLSEN seeks to transform the culture and instruction of every public school so that children will learn to equate “heterosexism”—the favoring of heterosexuality as normal—with other evils like racism and sexism so that they can and sometimes will grow up pondering their sexual orientation and the fluidity of their sexual identity.

To help get the LGBT message across to younger children, GLSEN offers teachers an array of educational products, including such early-reader books as “One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads” and “King and King” and “Asha’s Mums.” As far as teaching aids go, a 1999 book, “Queering Elementary Education” with a foreword by GLSEN executive director Kevin Jennings, offers essays such as “Locating a Place for Gay and Lesbian Themes in Elementary Reading, Writing and Talking.”

Rutgers English professor Michael Warner, a leading “intellectual” on Queer Theory, asserts that categories like “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are part of “the regime of the normal” that needs to be replaced, just as every progressive policy seeks to do – erase the “normal.” To overturn the old dichotomies of hetero/homo and even male/female, Warner encourages continuous sexual experimentation. What a novel concept to teach to our children! (sarcasm)

The City Journal article continues:

One of the major goals of GLSEN and similar groups is to reform public school curricula and teaching so that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender—or LGBT—themes are always central and always presented in the approved light. GLSEN holds regular conferences for educators and activists with workshops bearing titles such as “Girls Will Be Boys and Boys Will Be Girls: Creating a Safe, Supportive School Environment for Trans, Intersex, Gender Variant and Gender Questioning Youth” and “Developing and Implementing a Transgender Inclusive Curriculum.” Every course in every public school should focus on LGBT issues, GLSEN believes. A workshop at GLSEN’s annual conference in Chicago in 2000 complained that “most LGBT curricula are in English, history and health” and sought ways of introducing its agenda into math and science classes, as well. (As an example of how to queer geometry, GLSEN recommends using gay symbols such as the pink triangle to study shapes.)

For comprehensiveness, nothing beats a GLSEN-recommended resource manual distributed to all K–12 public schools in Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The manual presents an educational universe that filters everything through an LGBT lens. Lesson ideas include “role playing” exercises to “counter harassment,” where students pretend, say, to be bisexual and hear hurtful words cast at them; testing students to see where their attitudes lie toward sexual “difference” (mere tolerance is unacceptable; much better is “admiration” and, best of all, “nurturance”); getting students to take a “Sexual Orientation Quiz”; and having heterosexual students learn 37 ways that heterosexuals are privileged in society. In turn, principals should make an “ongoing PA announcement”—once a week, the manual says—telling students about confidential support programs for LGBT students.

Two videos come particularly highly rated by gay activists and educators as tools for making primary school queer-friendly. Both films strive to present homosexuality in a favorable light, without saying what it actually is. It’s Elementary, intended for parents, educators, and policymakers, shows how classroom teachers can lead kindergartners through carefully circumscribed discussions of the evils of prejudice, portrayed as visited to an unusual degree on gays and lesbians. In That’s a Family, designed for classroom use, children speak directly into the camera, explaining to other kids how having gay and lesbian parents is no different from, for example, having parents of different national backgrounds.

GLSEN even provides lesson plans for the promotion of cross-dressing in elementary school classes. A school resource book containing such lesson plans, Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry for Kids, Parents, and Teachers, has already been used in second-grade classrooms in California. A children’s play in the book features a little boy singing of the exhilaration of striding about “In Mommy’s High Heels,” in angry defiance of the criticism of his intolerant peers:

They are the swine, I am the pearl. . . .

They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!

When I rule the world! When I rule the world!

When I rule the world in my mommy’s high heels!

Some of the LGBT-friendly curricular material aimed at older children is quite sexually explicit. The GLSEN-recommended reading list for grades 7–12 is dominated by such material, depicting the queer sexuality spectrum. In Your Face: Stories from the Lives of Queer Youth features a 17-year-old who writes, “I identify as bisexual and have since I was about six or seven. . . . I sort of experimented when I was young.” Another GLSEN recommendation, Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology, has a 16-year-old contributor who explains, “My sexuality is as fluid, indefinable and ever-changing as the north flowing river.”

Some of the most explicit homosexual material has shown up in classrooms. An Ohio teacher encouraged her freshman students to read Entries From a Hot Pink Notebook, a teen coming-out  story that includes a graphic depiction of sex between two 14-year-old boys. In Newton, Massachusetts, a public school teacher assigned his 15-year-old students The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a farrago of sexual confusion, featuring an episode of bestiality as one of its highlights. Such books represent a growth industry for publishers, including mainstream firms.

As part of its effort to make the public schools into an arena of homosexual and transgender advocacy, GLSEN works assiduously to build a wide network of student organizers. It looks for recruits as young as 14, who in turn are to bring on board other students to form gay/straight alliances or other homosexual-themed student clubs at their schools. Glancing over the biographies of 2002’s student organizers reveals a uniform faith among them that experimenting with a range of homosexual behaviors serves the cause of civil rights.

The LGBTQ movement, gay/straight alliances, and GLSEN have become quite efficient about using the issue of “safety” and demanding “safe spaces” to silence opponents. Having a history of gay and lesbian individuals being bullied at school has allowed groups like GLSEN to command the upper hand in debates on “tolerance” in the school system. What they demand they usually succeed in getting.

At the urging of these groups, schools across the country have also established “safe” rooms for homosexual or sexually confused students, as if they might not be safe from “hate” and “intolerance” elsewhere in the school. In these rooms, identified by inverted pink triangles, students can discuss same-sex attraction or anxiety about sexual orientation with teachers or counselors, who promise a nonjudgmental and sympathetic hearing. Students who drop by for private discussion about their sexual confusion will often be referred, without parental knowledge, to local chapters of gay and lesbian organizations.

In the minds of many adults and parents, homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, a choice of which gender to be romantically and sexually involved with; it’s a matter of free choice. This may explain why many parents are opposed to such aggressive policies in the public school system, even beginning with elementary school – they see such advocacy as a form of recruitment. Even more frustrating to them is the fact that schools that claim to have the best interests for student education in mind have no problem seeing funds going to programs teaching about the LGBTQ agenda when so many public schools fail even to produce minimally literate and numerate graduates. They are equally frustrated that so much emphasis is being placed on such “tolerance” programs and lessons especially when all the evidence suggests that the incidence of self-labeled homosexuality and bisexuality in the population is in fact quite minuscule. According to a 2017 Gallup poll, only 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT with 5.1% of women identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men. (4.5% + 3.9%) ÷ 2 = 4.5% ]. And according to a poll taken in 2016 by the Williams Institute, an estimated 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender  

The article ends by asking these questions: “How many parents, even those not just tolerant of homosexuality but actively sympathetic toward homosexual rights, would really want their teenage children to be seeking out a “unique expression” of sexuality (let alone with their school’s help) or learning how to “fist”? How many would want their kindergartners—just figuring out their identities and desperately needing clear-cut categories like “boy” and “girl” to make sense of them—to engage in “non-traditional role play,” so that they grow up with warm feelings about transgendered people? Or their elementary school boys and girls exposed to sexual themes that they aren’t old enough to understand and that are likely to fill them with anxiety? Parents might well brush off an old-fashioned word and describe it all as, well . . . perverse.”

The bottom line is that with all the gender identity, transgenderism, gender fluidity, and LGBTQ polities, school systems will likely have to create a more gender-inclusive classroom environments.  


A definition and explanation of “transgenderism” from the Planned Parenthood website reads:

Some people feel that the sex (gender) they were assigned at birth doesn’t necessarily match their gender identity, or the gender that they feel they are inside. These people are often called “transgender.”

Transgender is about gender identity and not biological gender. Transgender is a term that includes the many ways that people’s gender identities can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth. There are alot of different terms transgender people use to describe themselves, including the simplified term “trans.”

Transgender people express their gender identities in many different ways. Some people use their dress, behavior, and mannerisms to live as the gender that feels right for them. Some people take hormones and may have surgery to change their body so it matches their gender identity. Some transgender people reject the traditional understanding of gender as divided between just “male” and “female,” so they identify just as transgender, or genderqueer, genderfluid, or something else.

When people’s assigned sex and gender identity are the same, they are called “cisgender.”

“Gender dysphoria” is another facet of this issue. Gender dysphoria is a term that psychologists and doctors use to describe the distress, unhappiness, and anxiety that transgender people may feel about the mismatch between their bodies and their gender identity. A person may be formally diagnosed with gender dysphoria in order to receive medical treatment to help them during their “transition.”

Psychologists used to call this “gender identity disorder.” However, the mismatch between a person’s body and gender identity isn’t in itself a mental illness (but it can cause emotional distress), and so the term was changed to reflect that.

One’s “transgender identity” is different from sexual orientation. People often confuse gender identity with sexual orientation. But being transgender isn’t the same thing as being lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Gender identity, whether transgender or cisgender, is about who you are inside as male, female, both, or none of these. Being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or straight describes who you are attracted to romantically, emotionally, and sexually. A transgender person can be gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual, just like someone who’s cisgender. A simple way to think about it is: Sexual orientation is about who you want to be with. Gender identity is about who you are.

Of course, we all remember or should remember an important lesson from Biology class and that that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) contains the blueprint for our identity. It codes for all our traits – our gender, our facial features, our body type, our height, our hair color, eye color, the shape of our nose, the overall the health of our body…. everything. It directs us through all the various phases of our life – our development in the womb, our growth through our childhood years, puberty and beyond. It eventually enables us to reproduce and ultimately, it signals our bodies to age and then to wind down. It is a brilliant system and I believe, is direct evidence of intelligence and the intent of our Creator. So when you hear people say that their “gender identify” doesn’t coincide with their biological gender or that they want to change their gender, that they believe there are more than two genders or we can change back and forth between genders (gender fluidity), just remember that one’s gender identity is permanently encoded in one’s DNA; it is stamped at birth – There are only 2 genders. If a person has sex chromosomes XX, then she is a female. If a person has an X and a Y chromosome, then he is a male. A person may want to change the window dressing, they may want to dress differently, change their voice, add body parts they weren’t born with, etc but it does NOT change their biological sex. That is forever coded in their DNA. Science cannot ignore the information in one’s DNA. Transgenderism and gender fluidity conflict with the defined and permanent laws of nature and biology, and so, to teach these progressive social developments to our children in school is intellectually dishonest, unethical, and confusing.

Even understanding DNA and knowing the biology regarding gender, and disregarding its natural laws, schools continue to teach transgenderism – even to children as young as kindergarteners. Parents of West Hartford Public Schools (WHPS) in Connecticut informed Parents Defending Education (PDE) that the kindergarten reading list in the school district includes the progressive book “Introducing Teddy,” a book described at as one that “introduces the youngest readers to understanding gender identity and transition in an accessible and heart-warming story about being true to yourself and being a good friend.” Furthermore, the parents complained that Hartford district officials will not allow children to be opted out of the curriculum. In other words, they have usurped the authority of the parents to have a say in what is being taught to their children.

The list of kindergarten books at WHPS also includes “Pink Is for Boys” and “Let’s Talk About Race.”

The reading list for 4th graders includes book “When Aiden Became a Brother,” which is full of gender (specifically, transgender) theory. Aiden, as a child, is convinced that he was born with the wrong gender. In the book, he concludes that his inner self doesn’t coincide with his biological gender and the author celebrates his transition” – his ‘coming out’ to becoming a big brother. It is written convincingly for children, and parents are incensed that such a book has been approved for their young children to read. Parents Defending Education contends that both books are confusing and manipulative and play to a progressive agenda.

As Breitbart News commented: “Teaching elementary students that their parents assigned them their gender at birth but may have gotten it wrong because anatomy is separate from gender is an obscene example of adults using ideology to confuse and manipulate children’s minds. The fact that parents are not permitted to opt their children out of this content based in gender ideology is so sinister, it’s hard to believe it’s even legal.”

Gender Fluidity and Pronoun Choice  –

Someone who is “gender fluid” is a person whose gender identity (the gender they identify with most) is not fixed. It can change over time or from day-to-day. Such individuals believe that gender is non-binary, meaning that not all humans fit squarely into either the male or female category. Gender, then, is different from biological sex, which refers to the genitalia with which you are born. 

Fluidity, therefore, is a form of gender identity or gender expression, rather than a sexual orientation.

As mentioned above, gender fluidity conflicts with the defined and permanent laws of nature and biology, and so, to teach these progressive social developments to our children in school is intellectually dishonest, unethical, and confusing.

Progressive health lessons (including alternative life styles and alternative sex education) –

Children and teenagers confront a barrage of information and situations related to sexuality. Guidance from families and schools is key in fostering teenagers’ healthy sexual development and responsible behavior. Far more adolescents are sexually active now than was the case in recent decades. Fifty-six percent (56%) of boys and 50% of girls aged 15-19 report having had sexual intercourse. Every year, nearly one million teenage girls become pregnant, and about 80% of those pregnancies are unintended. Rates of sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS infection, are on the rise among teenagers. The progressive organization, Planned Parenthood believes that comprehensive sexuality education in public school health classes can be critical in giving young people the information and skills they need to make responsible decisions and to protect themselves. By “comprehensive sexuality education,” the ACLU means a thorough, accurate curriculum that examines such subjects as human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior and health, including changing norms in our quickly “progressing” society.

Many states sponsor some form of sexuality education through laws, regulations, or recommendations. At present, 19 states require that schools provide sexuality education, and 34 states require instruction about sexually transmitted diseases and/or HIV/AIDS.  Although these statistics suggest that sexuality education is widespread in American schools, the quality and comprehensiveness of this education vary considerably. In some places, teachers of sexuality education are prohibited from mentioning topics such as intercourse, masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, or condoms. Currently, only five percent of American students receive truly comprehensive sexuality education.

Diversity & Inclusion

As mentioned above, equality has given way to “equity” in the US public school system. Following the death of George Floyd last year (May 25, 2020), schools have begun to focus on promoting diversity and inclusion. For example, in Ohio, school districts currently use a program for students centered around justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, referred to as the “JEDI program.” It was designed with great help from one of the state’s diversity centers. Most recently, Ohio parents have expressed their opposition over the program, arguing that it is “controversial and political,” which is inappropriate for the public school education of children. They say the program supports the teachings of Critical Race Theory, which they are also very much against.  

The following excerpt regarding Diversity & Inclusion comes from the US Department of Education, which we all should know is an unconstitutional government entity:


A growing body of research shows that diversity in schools and communities can be a powerful lever leading to positive outcomes in school and in life. Racial and socioeconomic diversity benefits communities, schools, and children from all backgrounds. Today’s students need to be prepared to succeed with a more diverse and more global workforce than ever before. Research has shown that more diverse organizations make better decisions with better results. The effects of socioeconomic diversity can be especially powerful for students from low-income families, who, historically, often have not had equal access to the resources they need to succeed. Additionally, Congress recently highlighted the importance of this priority in its “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA) through its inclusion of this priority particularly for Charter Management Organizations.

In light of this growing body of research on socioeconomic diversity, ED has undertaken new efforts to support this prioritization in a number of ways:

  • The Department’s Investing in InnovationOpening Doors, Expanding Opportunities ProgramMagnet Schools Assistance Program and Charter Schools Program competitions each include a focus on fostering socioeconomic diversity in schools.
  • The Department published a new supplemental priority for discretionary grant programs that support socioeconomic diversity strategies in the future, starting with fiscal year 2016.
  • The Department has solicited feedback on supporting socioeconomic diversity as a strategy to turnaround low-performing schools through its School Improvement Grants program.
  • Socioeconomic diversity is now a focus area of the Department’s Equity Assistance Centers. These regional centers provide technical assistance to school districts to promote equal educational opportunities.
  • These efforts build on President Obama’s Stronger Together proposal—a voluntary program to support the development, implementation, and expansion of community-driven strategies to increase socioeconomic diversity in America’s public schools.
  • The Department will significantly expand funding to a number of distressed communities across the nation through implementing comprehensive cradle-to-college-and-career Promise Neighborhoods
  • The Department published Improving Outcomes for All Students: Strategies and Considerations to Increase Student Diversity [PDF, 360KB], an action-oriented summary of considerations when embarking on efforts to increase student diversity, starting with possible steps to consider when conducting a diversity needs assessment and planning for implementation. Potential diversity strategies and a few examples from the field are included, as well as thoughts on efforts to sustain an inclusive environment once diversity strategies are being implemented.

Recognizing the cross-sector nature of this work, ED has also partnered with the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Transportation (DOT) to help state and local leaders increase diversity in their schools and communities, and narrow opportunity gaps:

  • In a joint letter issued by all three agencies, state and local leaders are called to work together in community-led efforts to promote and support socioeconomic and racial diversity in ways that create real economic mobility and provide access to opportunities for every child in every community. Working together with local education, transportation, and housing and community development agencies, communities can help create and sustain access to high-quality educational opportunities; decent, safe and affordable housing; and well-connected public transportation networks and safer streets.
  • The agencies also hosted an interagency listening session for education, housing, and transportation leaders at the U.S. Department of Education’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. The session addresses the need for increased diversity in our schools and neighborhoods, and challenges and opportunities for creating this.

These recent efforts build on the series of steps to promote strong and diverse schools and early learning programs that ED has taken during the past several years, including:

  • Investing in programs that support diverse schools (Opening Doors, Expanding Opportunities ProgramMagnet Schools Assistance ProgramCharter Schools Program, and Preschool Development Grant program selection criteria);
  • Issuing guidance in conjunction with the Department of Justice explaining how K-12 educational institutions can lawfully pursue voluntary policies to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of Titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and current case law; distributing guidance and a letter on the voluntary use of race to achieve diversity in higher education concerning the implementation of Fisher and Schuette; a letter to educational leaders of institutions of higher education to eliminate discrimination based on race, religion or national origin and create safe learning environments; and guidance about ensuring students have equal access to educational resources without regard to race, color, or national origin.
  • Resolving complaints and compliance reviews related to racial discrimination at the elementary, secondary and postsecondary levels through ED’s Office for Civil Rights, which has included reviewing university admissions plans for compliance with Title VI, as well as resolution agreements with school districts to increase equal access to criteria-based schools.

[Source: ]

Pornography in Books available to school-age children

In recent months, there has been a shocking departure from the age-appropriate books in elementary school libraries, middle school libraries, and high school libraries to the progressive gender-obsessed, transgender, same-sex, hyper-sexualized, violence-themed, and even pornographic books. The departure from age-appropriate reading material to borderline pornographic reading material (including depictions) is all done in the name of “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Parents currently do not have a say on what is offered to their children in these libraries, which is, in itself, a huge issue. It is an undisputed fact that there are reports from all over the country of the sexually explicit and pornographic content that is being disseminated to children through the public education system.

How and why is this happening?  What we are realizing is that libraries and even classroom “required reading” assignments have become the new outlets and venues for the American Library Association (ALA), the nation’s largest association of librarians. The ALA, which receives funds of about $17 million, publishes one of the most widely used “diversity” book lists, and school librarians and school officials use that list to buy books.

Virginia parents, for example, have expressed outrage at what they call pornography in their children’s library books and have expressed that anger at board meetings. One parent read excerpts and showed pictures from selected books, one of which showed a fourth-grade boy performing oral sex on a grown man. These parents have had some success and some books were eventually pulled (pending a “thorough review,” of course). But other offensive books, such as “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison, are still available in school catalogs in several Virginia counties. Maryland public schools also have such books on their library shelves. 

In 2016, Virginia’s Governor McAuliffe vetoed a bill that would have prevented students from having to see such sexually explicit material in schools. The so-called “BELOVED  bill,” which was named after a parent passionately objected to the sexually-explicit content in the novel of that name (authored by Toni Morrison), would have allowed parents to review and opt out of engaging with sexually explicit books that might be shown to their children. McAuliffe at the time called the bill “unnecessary” and said the matter would be resolved by the Virginia Board of Education. In 2017, however, the state board rejected a similar proposal to allow students to opt out of engaging with sexually explicit reading material. That’s Virginia for you. 

An even more offensive book, one that has outraged parents nationally, is titled “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe. It is so sexually graphic that a parent could not read excerpts from it or even describe it in detail on a radio interview because of FCC guidelines. It is meant to be an autobiography about the author’s “journey of self-identity,” which, according to the description, includes “bonding with friends over erotic gay fanfiction.” When a Virginia parent raised concerns to her child’s county school superintendent, he defended the book in an email, likening it to art – specifically, to Michelangelo’s artwork “David” – and contrasting it with Playboy magazine.

The books of concern today contain graphic sexual images and descriptions of sex between children, teens and even adults and minors. Some are graphic novels that look like comic strips. The content is pornographic and represents a disturbing agenda by activists that targets youth, hiding behind seemingly virtuous and innocuous words such as “diversity” and “inclusion.”

North Carolina must not accept what Virginia has accepted.

NC Lt. Governor Mark Robinson believes he has a responsibility and the duty to protect all people, but most importantly, our children in the public school system. On October 11, at the Asbury Baptist Church in Seagrove, Robinson spoke these bold words: “There’s no reason anybody anywhere in America should be telling any child about transgenderism, homosexuality, any of that filth. And yes, I called it filth. And if you don’t like it that I called it filth, come see me and I’ll explain it to you.”  He was referring to the reading material available for 7thgraders. At the STAND UP FOR AMERICA rally in Raleigh last month, Lt. Gov. Robinson again echoed those views and added: “It’s filth, you and I know it. I don’t understand why they don’t understand it.”

So, what is the “filth” that our Lt. Governor has been speaking out against?  If someone were to display some of the images from schoolbooks used for teaching in Michigan, for example, he or she would be arrested.  In North Carolina, if students were to mimic what is being taught to them in their progressive health (sex education) classes, they would be guilty of a felony.  If a person were to speak the words contained in the books that are available to students today, he or she be asked to stop since children were present. If it’s not appropriate for polite society, why is it appropriate to teach children?  

The books “Forged in Fire” (addressing pedophilia, child rape) and “All American Boys” (very poorly-written and full of the F*** word and other curse words) are required reading for 8th grade students at Ayden Middle School, in Pitt County, NC. I’ve looked at several of the excerpts from these books and it is mind-blowing that adults, and especially individuals tasked with the responsible education of North Carolina children, would allow them, let alone even consider them as “appropriate” for middle-school reading assignments. I’m sure there are even worse books in the more “progressive” school districts, such as Wake county and Mecklenburg county.

Again, after reviewing all the progressive, offensive, perverse, vile, disgusting, and inappropriate material allowed in our North Carolina public schools, I have to ask 2 questions:  (1)  WHY?  With the limited time the school system gets our children for the purpose of giving them a proper education, why do the state school board and local school boards think it’s valuable to misappropriate that time on progressive subjects, on resurrecting racism, and on indoctrination that fight against parents and family values and make it so hard for them to raise decent young men and women?  And (2)  How do such subjects and indoctrination coincide with the NC state constitution’s education mission to “forever encourage” religion, morality, and knowledge in education?

Finally, I say to the members of the NC Department of Instruction and to all the offending local boards of education: “SHAME ON YOU.”  I say the same to our dishonorable governor Roy Cooper: “SHAME ON YOU, GOVERNOR COOPER!”  You can all do better, and you must.


Christopher F. Rufo, “Subversive Education,” City Journal, March 17, 2021.  Referenced at:   [City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank.]

Diane Rufino, “The Teaching of Critical Race Theory in Schools is Unconstitutional, ForLoveofGodandCountry’s Blog, September 14, 2021.  Referenced at:

Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson Addresses House Committee on the Judiciary, BreitbartNews (YouTube) –    

North Carolina Constitution, Article IX (“Education Encouraged” –

Michelle Cordero, “How Critical Race Theory is Dividing America,” The Heritage Foundation, October 26th, 2020.  Referenced at:   [Includes a podcast interview and a full transcript of that interview}

Srivats Lakshma, “What is SEL? Parents Push Back Against CRT’s “Trojan Horse,” Saying it Promotes Suicide,” November 16, 2021.  Referenced at:

PANORAMA, Question Bank –

PANORAMA, 21 Quick Questions to Check-in on Your Students’ Well-Being in 2021-22 –

SEL Activities for Middle School –

“Schools in Transition: A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools.” Human Rights Campaign.  Referenced at:    (you can download a copy of the brochure from this site)

Derrick Wilburn addresses School Board on Race and Critical Race Theory, YouTube – 

Dr. Susan Berry, “Transgender: Connecticut Parents Report Kindergartners Taught Gender Ideology Without Opt-Out,” Breitbart, November 18, 2021.  Referenced at: 

“Essentially Child Pornography” (addressing reading material for young children in Ohio schools), NBC News, September 15, 2021.  Referenced at:

“Pornographic ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education’ in Massachusetts Public Schools,” Massachusetts Family Institute, January 17, 2020.  Referenced at:

Josh Christenson, “Virginia Public School Books Contain Images Too Pornographic for TV,” The Washington Free Beacon, October 25, 2021.  Referenced at:

Sanzi, “School Officials Must Pull Porn From Library Shelves,” The Valley Breeze, October 27, 2021.  Referenced at:

Editorial, “NC Lt. Governor is Spot On Criticizing the ‘Filth’ in Public Education,” American NewsHub Triangle, October 30, 2021.  Referenced at:   [North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson stands by LGBTQ+ ‘filth’ comments amid controversy]

“Stop North Carolina’s Child Spying Program,” Tell Legislators to DEFUND NC Department of Instruction & NC Health and Human Services spying program in our classrooms!,” Education First Alliance.  Referenced at: 

Marjorie King, “Queering the Schools,” The City Journal magazine, spring 2003.  Referenced at:

Panorama Education (Provider and funder of Panoroma Surveys) – 

“Diversity and Opportunity,” US Department of Education.  Referenced at:

Rashawa Ray and Alexandra Gibbons, “Why Are States Banning Critical Race Theory,” Brookings, August 2021.  Referenced at:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Whistleblower, Lt. Col. Theresa Long Delivers Powerful Testimony to Senate Roundtable (on Nov. 2) Regarding the Harmful Effects of the COVID Vaccine Mandate for the US Military

Whistleblower, Lt. Col. Theresa Long’s Powerful Testimony to the US Senate on Nov. 2, 2021 (an article by Sean Salai in The Washington Times, Wednesday, November 3, 2021)

Powerful Testimony was given by Lt. Col. Theresa Long, MD to a panel of US Senators (called by Sen. Ron Johnson), regarding the COVID vaccine mandates imposed on the U.S. Military by the Biden Administration and how it will lead to disastrous results for the US military to a panel of US senators, on November 2, 2021).

Click on the link provided at the end of this Washington Times article to watch Dr. Long’s testimony.

Testifying under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Lt. Col. Theresa Long told the Wisconsin Republican at the event that she had grounded vaccinated pilots to monitor symptoms of myocarditis, including chronic fatigue,  that could cause them to die of heart failure in mid-air. “I made numerous efforts to get senior medical leaders to at the very least inform soldiers of this risk; my concerns were ignored,” Dr. Long said at the event

The colonel, an aviation safety officer, said she decided to speak up after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced in June an “emergency meeting to discuss higher than expected myocarditis in 16 to 24-year-olds.”

Despite that announcement, she said “the military didn’t even pause their vaccination efforts” to rush out the Pfizer and Moderna shots.

A spokesman for the 1st Aviation Brigade at Fort Rucker in Alabama, where Dr. Long is responsible for certifying the health of 4,000 flight-ready airmen, referred any particular “medical questions” about her appearance at the roundtable to the Army Surgeon General’s office.

“We’ll confirm that she’s assigned here and that she appeared in her own individual capacity,” Lt. Col. Andy Thaggard told The Washington Times on Wednesday.

Mr. Johnson told The Times that the roundtable was part of his effort to hold federal agencies accountable and encourage officials to be “honest and transparent regarding COVID-19 vaccines.”

“I hope Americans, especially those in power, listen carefully to what the participants had to say. We all want the pandemic to be over, but ignoring early treatment and implementing policies that do more damage is not the solution,” the Republican senator said.

The Times reported Sept. 28 that Dr. Long had filed an affidavit against the Biden administration’s military vaccine mandate as part of a pending lawsuit seeking an injunction against attempts to force service members to get the shots.

The U.S. District Court for Colorado in August rejected the lawsuit originally brought by two Army staff sergeants but invited the plaintiffs to present the new evidence that includes Dr. Long’s testimony.

So far the Biden administration has ignored the suit.

Todd Callendar and David Wilson, the two lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, said this week that a military gag order allows Dr. Long to give testimony upon request to political representatives despite banning her from media appearances.

Mr. Wilson said the colonel provided her personal opinion at the senator’s event as a citizen, not as a representative of the Army.

“Her oath and the law, to include her risk management training, require informed consent, which many doctors in the military are completely ignoring to just follow the direction of those above them and be perceived as the heroes getting all vaccinated despite the potential consequences,” he said.

In her testimony at the roundtable, Dr. Long quoted a young woman training for the Army Ranger School who confessed to the colonel that she regretted getting vaccinated. “I hate to say how much I regret that decision,” Dr. Long quoted her as saying. “It’s been a little over two weeks and my body isn’t right.”

Video link

Source: Sean Salai, “Army Whistleblower Who Warned Vaccines Could Kill Pilots Testifies at Sen. Ron Johnson Roundtable,” The Washington Times, November 3, 2021. Referenced at:

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

Dr. Julie Ponesse Delivers Remarkable Speech (about the COVID vaccine mandate) – “DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS!”

***  Dr. Julie Ponesse is a professor of ethics who has taught at Ontario’s Huron University College for 20 years. She was placed on leave and banned from accessing her campus due to the vaccine mandate. She presented at the The Faith and Democracy Series on October 28, 2021. Dr. Ponesse has now taken on a new role with The Democracy Fund, a registered Canadian charity aimed at advancing civil liberties, where she serves as the pandemic ethics scholar.

You can watch her deliver her remarks here –

Here is the transcript of her remarks:

Think back to a couple of years ago—fall 2019, let’s say. What were you doing then? What was your life like? What did you care about? What did you most fear? What DID YOU IMAGINE ABOUT the FUTURE?

That’s the person I would like to talk to for the next 15 minutes, + I’ll begin with my own story: At the end I’ll have a FAVOUR to ask plus a little SECRET to share.

In the fall of 2019, I was a professor of ethics and ancient philosophy; I taught students critical thinking + the importance of self-reflection, how to ask good questions and evaluate evidence, how to learn from the past and why democracy requires civic virtue.

Fast forward to September 16, 2021 when I received a “termination with cause” letter after I questioned, and refused to comply, with my employer’s vaccine mandate. I was dismissed for doing exactly what I had been hired to do. I was a professor of ethics questioning what I take to be an unethical demand. You don’t have to look very hard to see the irony.

Canada is governed by laws which are based on ethics. You could say that ethics are the bedrock beneath our democracy. “The right to determine what shall or shall not be done with one’s own body, and to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, is a right deeply rooted in our common law.” These aren’t my words; they are the words of Justice Sydney Robins of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

With very few exceptions, each person’s body is considered inviolate in Canadian law, and this is the underlying ethos of the Nuremberg Code, a promise to humanity that we would never again endorse uninformed, non-voluntary medical decision-making, even for the patient’s own good, even for the sake of the public good.

By definition, vaccine mandates are coercive immunization strategies: in the absence of coercion — the threat of a loss of employment, for example — people would not voluntarily agree to do what the mandate is trying to achieve!

Employers are holding our careers hostage, and removing our participation in the economy and in public life. Their justification is that “we are in a pandemic,” and we must therefore relinquish autonomy over our bodies for the sake of the public good.

So, let’s talk about autonomy and the public good for a minute.

In emergencies, the Parliament and provincial legislatures have a limited power to pass laws that violate certain Charter rights for the sake of the public good. But, to justify those violations, vaccine mandates would need to meet a very high threshold: COVID-19 would, for example, need to be a highly virulent pathogen for which there is no adequate treatment, and the vaccines would need to be demonstrably effective and safe.

The current state of affairs in Canada meets neither of these criteria.

Consider these facts:

1) COVID-19 has an infection facility rate not even 1% that of smallpox (and it poses even less risk to children)

2) a number of safe, highly effective pharmaceuticals exist to treat it (including monoclonal antibodies, Ivermectin, fluvoxamine, Vitamin D and Zinc), AND

3) The vaccines have reported more adverse events (including innumerable deaths) than every other vaccine on the market over the last 30 years.

In light of these facts, I have so many questions:

Why are the vaccinated granted vaccine passports and access to public spaces, when the Director of the CDC has stated that the COVID-19 vaccines cannot prevent transmission?

Why is vaccination the ONLY mitigation strategy when emerging evidence (including a recent Harvard study) shows no discernible relationship between the vaccination rate and new cases?

Why does our government continue to withhold Ivermectin as a recommended treatment when the U-S National Institutes of Health supports it, and when the state of Uttar Pradesh in India distributed it to its 230 million people, reducing its COVID death rate to almost zero? How has India surpassed Canada in Health Care?

Why are we about to vaccinate 5-year-olds when COVID poses to them less risk than the potential vaccine reactions AND while there is NO effective monitoring system for the vaccines?

Why are we focused on the narrow benefits of vaccine-induced immunity when real-world studies show natural immunity is more protective, more potent, and more enduring?

Why do we shame the “vaccine hesitant” and not the “vaccine adamant”?

“Why,” as a nurse recently asked, “do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place?”

By every measure and from every angle, this is a ‘house of cards’ about to crumble. But the question that interests me is why hasn’t it crumbled already? Why are these questions not the headlines of every major newspaper in Canada every day?

Have the right people simply not seen the right data? Is it just a clerical error…on a global scale?

What has happened to our leadership? Our Prime Minister leads the battle cry:  “Don’t think you’re getting on a plane,” he threatened. Campaign promises are now segregationist public policy. Our government encourages us daily to be divisive and hateful.

How did things change so drastically? How did we Canadians change so drastically?

It’s my observation that we are facing a pandemic not just of a virus but a pandemic of compliance and complacency, in a culture of silence, censorship, and institutionalized bullying. MainStreamd Media likes to say that we are fighting a “war of information” — that misinformation, and even questioning and doubt, have plagued this pandemic. But it is not only information that is being weaponized, in this war; it is a person’s right to think for herself.

I have heard it said “well I don’t know that much about viruses” so I shouldn’t really have an opinion. but…  The issue is not whether you know more about virology than our public health officials; the issue is why we aren’t all calling them out for not being willing to engage with the evidence and debate someone who has a different opinion.

We should be calling not for an outcome but for a process to be reestablished. Without that process we have no science, we have no democracy. Without that process, we are in a kind of moral war.

But, the wars of the past have had clear and distinct boundaries: the east and the west, patriots and government. The war we find ourselves in today is one of infiltration instead of invasion, intimidation instead of free choice, of psychological forces so insidious we come to believe the ideas are our own and that we are doing our part by giving up our rights.

As a wise colleague recently said “This is a war about the role of government. It is about our freedom to think and ask questions, and about whether individual autonomy can be downgraded to a conditional privilege or whether it remains a right. It is a war about whether you are to remain a citizen or become a subject. It is about who owns you… you or the state.”

It is about where we draw the line.

This isn’t about liberals and conservatives, pro-and anti-vaxxers, experts and lay people. Everyone should care about truth, everyone should care about the scientific and democratic processes, everyone should care about each other.  There is, I would argue, little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our freedom to debate, to criticize, to demand evidence for what our government asks of us does not survive with it.

As someone born in the ’70s, I never thought THIS would be a war I would have to fight, that the right to bodily autonomy, to the free and transparent exchange of information would be at risk.

Think for a minute about the the most unimaginable harms of the last century  — the ‘final solution,’ South African apartheid, the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides. Aren’t we supposed to remember atrocities of the past so we don’t repeat them? Well, memories are short, family chains are broken, new worries eclipse the old ones, and the lessons of the past fade into ancient history only to be forgotten.

Today, the vaccinated seem to enjoy all the rights + privileges of a civilized society: freedom of movement, access to education, and the approval of governments, law makers, journalists, friends and family. Vaccination is the ticket to a CONDITIONAL return of our right to participate in Canadian society.

But as John F Kennedy said: “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

I have no doubt that COVID-19 is the greatest threat to humanity we have ever faced; not because of a virus; that is just one chapter of a much longer, more complex story; but because of our response to it.

And that response is, I believe, earning its place in every medical ethics textbook that will be published in the next century.

What can we do?

As Canadian chemist and author, Orlando Battista, said: “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”

In our world, politeness, getting by, and flying under the radar appear to be the goals. Gone are the 60’s revolutionaries, the patriots of early America. We are the victims and the soldiers of a pandemic of compliance. But compliance is not a virtue; it isn’t neutral and it certainly isn’t harmless.

When Hannah Arendt covered the trial of Adolph Eichmann (Nazi Party leader who was a major architect of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Problem”) for the New Yorker in 1961, she expected to find a complex, arrogant, diabolical, perhaps psychotic, man. What she found was quite the opposite. She was struck by his very ordinariness. He was “terribly and terrifyingly normal,” she wrote, “a man who was just ‘following orders,’ as he said over and over again.”

What she found was what she called “the banality of evil….  The thoughtless tendency of ordinary people to follow orders in order to conform without thinking for themselves.”

The dismissive well-rehearsed messaging of our public health officials has created a highly-efficient machine that does not publish its evidence or engage in debate, but only issues orders that we obligingly follow. With the help of the media, its mistakes are hidden, its policies unquestioned, and its dissenters silenced.

How do we break this silence?  How do we regain our sanity and rebuild our democracy?

Perhaps its time to get a little bit noisy. Studies have proven that once an idea is adopted by just 10% of the population, that is the tipping point when ideas, opinions, and beliefs will be rapidly adopted by the rest. So, a vocal and noisy 10% is all it takes.

Democracy, a word which comes from the Greek words demos, meaning “people” and kratos, meaning “rule” is the idea that the citizens of a country should take an active role in the government of their country. Democracy means, literally, “rule of the people.” Democracy just doesn’t allow for freedom of expression and inquiry; it requires it.

The little secret that I promised you at the beginning of my remarks is this: You are not a bad person for demanding evidence. You are not a bad person for trusting your instincts, and you are not a bad person for wanting to think for yourself.  In fact, the opposite is true. If you are worried about a loss of justice, if you are worried about what kind of lives will be available for our children, if you want your country back – the country that was once the envy of the world – then now is the time to act. There is no reason to wait. There is no luxury or excuse to wait. We need you now!

Now is the time to call your politicians and write to our newspapers. Now is the time to protest. Now is the time to challenge and even disobey our governments.

As Margaret Meade said: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

In other words, you don’t need a tribe of heroes, a mass of heroes, or a country of heroes. You need only one.

You can do your part and you can make a difference. The Southwest pilots, the Canadian mounties, the university healthcare workers and nurses are all making a difference.

And lastly, the favor I have to ask you – We need heroes now more than ever. Our democracy is asking for volunteers. Will you be a hero for our country?  For our children?  Will you be a part of the noisy 10% ??

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

John Randolph (VA) and John C. Calhoun (SC) Explain How the Protective Tariff Agitated the Animosity Between the North and South

by Charles T. Pace (from his book SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE: Why War?) and Diane Rufino, November 9, 2021

John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, might be America’s most interesting personality, and is surely one of its wisest and noblest characters. A Southern farmer and perfect aristocrat, he is exceeded by no one in honesty, courage, and devotion to principle. In the US Congress during the years 1799-1829, he continually fought to stop the selfish growth of the government. He lost that fight. But his prediction of the evil result of un-chained government has come to pass: loss of freedom, prosperity, security, and peace.

John Randolph called the War of 1812 “the Iliad of our woes.” In Congress in 1816, he spoke on the tariff legislation demanded by Northern interests:

“What you are after is a system of bounties to manufacturers in order to encourage them to do what, if it is advantageous to do at all, they will do anyway. You are giving a subsidy, a gift, to men to carry out their customary business for their own profit. Your tariff means that government is to give a premium to the manufacturers out of the earnings of the hardworking, hard-pressed farmer. You are injuring our most valuable industry – agriculture. You are about to destroy the industry, agriculture, that brings to these shores more foreign capital by far than all the (Northern) manufactures combined.

The question is: Should a farmer be taxed to pay money to a man in Massachusetts who operates a shoe factory or a cotton mill? We can buy cheaper and better products from Europe. It is not fair to lay a duty on the farmer to encourage manufactures. All we shall get from that is worse goods at a higher price. And the farmer will be paying for everybody’s goods. Anybody in the North who buys a pair of shoes will have the Southern farmer subsidizing his purchase.

Why does not the government give a bounty to make flour or run a grist mill? We have plenty of them down here in the South. It makes just as much sense. Why should the farmer pay a man more than it is worth to buy clothes made in the North from the farmer’s cotton when, if he can sell his cotton to Europe, he can get the money to buy the clothes from Europe – clothes that are better and cheaper.

The people of this country have enough burdens without taking on their backs the support of the Northern mill owners. As it is now, five-sixths of the foreign income is brought to this country by the exports of the South, Two-thirds of the taxes paid in this country are paid by the South. We must not sacrifice one part of our country in order to enrich the other. What claim does the North have to be supported by the earnings of others? In the late war [of 1812], the farmers bore the whole brunt of the war, paid the taxes that supported it, remained poor, and fought in the army. The farmers paid the taxes, the farmers did the fighting. The North started the war because England prohibited their shipping. Then when the war started, the North ran from the fight, threatened to secede, and enriched themselves selling to the army.

The man of commerce is a citizen of no place, or any place. The farmer has his property, his lands, his all, his household goods to defend, and is like the meek drudge, the ox, who does the labor and plows the ground and then for his reward gets the blighted blades, the moldy straw, and the mildewed shocks of corn for this ration. And the man of commerce, the commercial speculator, lives in riches, rides in coaches, and rests in palaces. Even without the aid of what Congress gives him, the city money man will beat the farmer every time. Even without Congress’ intervention on the other side, the farmer is no match for the money man. Alert, vigilant, enterprising, and active, the commercial men are collected in masses, come together at a moment’s notice to enforce their interest. Do but ring the fire-bell in Philadelphia or Boston and you can assemble all the town’s money men in fifteen minutes. Nay, for that matter, they are already assembled; they are always on Wall Street. Shylock meets his friends there every day. They compare notes, lay plans; they have in trick and intelligence what the farmer can never possess. The ox cannot play the fox or the tiger. A farmer cannot skim into a coffee house and shave a note with one hand while with the other sign a petition to Congress to relieve him of his burdens by picking the pockets of those whose labors have fed and enriched him, and whose valor has defended him. The farmer, the patient drudges of the other orders of society, will either be left alone, unhurt by taxes and tariff, or be forced to pay for the prosperity of the manufacturers and be squeezed by the Northern hand grasping for power.”

As predicted, the Northern commercial interest used their growing majority in Congress to enact measures increasingly parasitizing Southern agriculture. Abolition was merely the philosophy of a few Northern Jacobin, Humanist zealots, idle intellectuals. The Northern people were indifferent to it. The politicians saw that the Northern wish to keep Negroes out of the North could be used to overcome the opposition. The Northern politicians introduced “slavery” into every subject of dispute with the South in order to distract attention from the real issue – money. It is a perfect illustration of Chancellor Oxenstierne’s axiom and lament: “Government is the conduct of public affairs for the private interest. It is with so little wisdom that the world is governed.” The Abolitionists provided the politicians with a “red herring,” a vicious and dishonest stratagem that destroyed the body of the South and the heart and soul of the country.

The South was being increasingly separated from its market. Forced away from trade with Europe, the products of which were rendered too costly by the “protective” tariff on imports, the South was forced to buy the more expensive, lower-quality Northern products. The North was selling its manufactured products in a protected and subsidized market; they could set their own prices. The South had to sell in the open world market. Norther prices rose while Southern prices fell.

The united States were comprised of a commercial-manufacturing North and a smaller, weaker, agricultural South. The two regions were split into two parties, representing those antagonistic interests. Five-sixths of the money supporting the central (federal) government was paid by the South through a protective tariff. The smaller South paid the tax but the more populous North controlled the Congress and spent the tax to benefit Northern businesses. The North won twice. The South paid the tariff that prohibited European manufactures from competing with Northern manufactures. The money thus gathered was disbursed by the Northern money men in Northern projects to benefit Northern businesses.

In 1824, the Northern majority in Congress doubled the tariff, to 37%. Randolph told Congress that the Colonies had seceded from England for tax reasons which were merely a trifle compared to the harm the North was inflicting on the South. He said the south could not stay in the union under such abuse. Nobody, not one person, rose in response to deny the right of a state to leave the union – to secede from the union. Twenty-four years later, Lincoln affirmed that right. Randolph spoke in 1824:

“If, under the power you have taken to regulate trade, you prevent us from exporting, if you draw the last drop of blood from our veins, the last shilling from our pockets, you have ruined us. What good has the Constitution done us? Its checks and balances have not protected us. A fig for the Constitution. A piece of paper will not protect us from knaves. You ask us to lie down and be shorn. I am surprised that the votaries (persons such as priests and nuns) of humanity – persons who cannot sleep, so great is their distress of mind at the very existence of Negro slavery – should press so avidly a measure whose effect will be to aggravate the misery of slave and master. What can be more pitiable than a man who has every desire to clothe his Negroes comfortably but is absolutely prohibited from doing so by Congress? I hope that none of those who wish to raise the price of the slave’s, or the master’s, blanket or his wool suit will ever travel through the South and see the nakedness of the land because we cannot export, and the equal nakedness of the cultivators of that land. The profits of slave and master are hardly existent now. The words of Patrick Henry, begging Virginia to remain free, not to join the federal union, ring in my ears. ‘They may liberate your slaves. Congress possesses that power and will exercise it.’ Now, the first step toward this event, so devoutly wished by any, is to pass such laws as may yet still further impoverish the masters. You are soon then to see the case where the slave will not run away from his master, but the master shall run away from him,”

John Randolph would die in 1833.

In 1828, Senator Thomas H. Benton of Missouri spoke these words from the floor of the Senate chamber:

“I feel for the sad changes in the South. Before the revolution, it was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality. Only the hospitality remains. Wealth has fled the South and settled in the North. The South, in just four of its staples, has since the Revolution, exported eight hundred million dollars, while the North has exported almost nothing. That would indicate wealth unparalleled. Now, the South is short of money. The frugal habits of the people are pushed to self-denial. Under federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the federal revenue. Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the federal government. Of this great sum annually furnished by them, nothing, or next to nothing, is returned to them. That expenditure flows in the opposite direction – it flows northward, in one direction only, uninterrupted, in a perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises in the North. Federal legislation does all this. It does it by eternally taking, plundering, from the South and returning nothing to it, Every new tariff increases the force of this action, It is federal legislation that has ruined the South.”

In their greed for money, the Northern states, holding a majority in Congress, with their money men as representatives, hijacked the government for northern interests, at the great expense of the South.

In 1828, Congress raised the tariff to 50%. South Carolina threatened to leave the Union, The only issue was the tariff. In fact, the “tariff of abominations” would become such a hotbed issue that it led to the famous “Nullification Crisis of 1832,” whereby South Carolina passed an ordinance of nullification, refusing to collect the tariff and send it to DC.  South Carolina was attacked because of money, not slavery. Their opponent was the great slaveholder, President Andrew Jackson, who had Congress pass a Force Bill so that he could send federal forces into South Carolina to collect the tariff money.

It is dishonest, and has always been dishonest, to confound the tariff issue with the completely unrelated issue of slavery.

John C. Calhoun, speaking for South Carolina in 1835, said:

“A deep Constitutional question lies at the bottom of the controversy. The real question is: Has the government a right to impose burdens on the capital and industry of one portion of the country, not with a view to revenue, but to benefit another? The federal government has, by express provision of the Constitution, the right to lay duties on imports. The state never denied or resisted this right, nor even thought of so doing. The government has, however, not been contented with exercising this power as she had a right to do but has gone beyond it, hy laying imposts, not for revenue alone, but for protection. This the state considers as an unconstitutional exercise of power, highly injurious and oppressive to her and the other staple states, and has, accordingly, met it with the most determined resistance. I do not intend to enter, at this time, into the argument as to the unconstitutionality of the protective system, It is not necessary. It is sufficient that the power is nowhere granted (in the Constitution), and that, from the journals of the Convention which formed the Constitution, it would seem that it was refused. In support of the journals, I might cite the statement of Luther Martin, to show that the Convention so far from conferring the power on the federal government, left to the States the right to impose duties on imports, with the express view for enabling the several States to protect their own manufactures. Notwithstanding this, Congress has assumed, without any warrant (grant of authority) from the Constitution, the right of exercising this most important power, and has so exercised it as to impose a ruinous burden on the labor and capital of the State of South Carolina, by which her resources are exhausted, the enjoyments of her citizens curtailed, the means of education contracted and all her interests essentially and injuriously affected.

We have been jeeringly told that she is a small state; that her population does not exceed half a million of souls, and that more than one half are not of the European race. The facts are so. I know she can never be a great state, and that the only distinction to which she can aspire must be based on the moral and intellectual acquirements of her sons. To the development of these much of her attention has been directed; but this restrictive system, which has so unjustly exacted the proceeds of her labor to be bestowed on other sections, has so impaired the resources of the State, that, if not speedily arrested, it will dry up the means of education and with it, deprive her of the only source through which she can aspire to distinction.

The people of the State believe that the Union is a union of States and not of individuals; that it was formed by the States and that the citizens of the several States were bound to it through the acts of their several States; that each State ratified the Constitution for itse3lf; and that it was only by such ratification by a State that any obligation was imposed upon the citizens; thus believing, it is the opinion of the people of Carolina that it belongs to the State which has imposed the obligation to declare, in the last resort, the extend of this obligation, so far as her citizens are concerned, and this upon the plain principles which exist in all analogous cases of compact between sovereign bodies, On this principle, the people of the State, acting in their sovereign capacity in convention, precisely as they adopted their own and the federal Constitution, have declared by the ordinance, that the acts of Congress which imposed duties under the authority to lay imposts, are acts, not for revenue, as intended by the Constitution, but for their own. And they have declared by the ordinance that the acts of Congress which imposed duties under the authority to lay imports, are acts, not for revenue, as intended by the Constitution, but for protection, and are therefore null and void.”

Calhoun, in 1835, in understanding the State remedies as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison understood them and as they wrote about in detail, characterized the high protective tariff as an unconstitutional act of Congress, without force of law and therefore asserted South Carolina’s right to ignore it and not enforce it.

The South was responsible for all of the exports, as well as the means of bringing money to our shores. The North derived its income from the tariff that forced the South to buy their manufactured goods and from finance and merchant marine that depended on the Southern produce that was exported to the world. The South was indispensable to Northern businessmen. Lincoln was their loyal agent, always serving their desire for power and profit.

The “revenue” tariff was converted into a “protective” tax on imports to subsidize Northern commerce at the expense of the wealth and economy of the South. This was what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “intervention” – intrusion by government into what should be private human action (ie, a free market system), Advanced intervention is called “socialism” or “communism.”  “Intervention in the market” means government invasion of privacy and is always done to benefit one group at the expense of others, and is always counter-productive. All human action and interaction is injured or destroyed when government gets involved. Most

violent wounds, many deaths, and all loss of freedom and prosperity result from the selfish acts of rulers. That is why the South died and why the American Republic died. Aside from the two great conflicts of the twentieth century, is the cause of wars. The American tariff story is a classical demonstration that majorities, unless restrained by law or restrained by honor, decency, and ethics, will abuse minorities. Government, unless restrained, will always abuse its power.

As I will explain below, it was not the “extension of slavery” that moved Lincoln to make war in 1861. It was the loss of profit by wealthy, demanding, and ambitious Northern interests when the Southern states left the union. It threatened to become even more disastrous if a vast free-trade Confederate States of America (the Confederacy) “were allowed” to flourish in North America.  While the decision to separate from a tyrannical government is an inalienable sovereign right belonging to every State (as stated in the Declaration of Independence, itself being a secessionist document, declaring the American states absolved from their political and government ties to Great Britain), Abraham Lincoln believed he alone was the government official to make that decision. A government of sovereign States was transformed by Lincoln’s war to prevent Southern independence into a government of bullied and subjugated States.

Talking to Captain Hillyar of the British Navy in 1861, the Confederate Navy hero Raphael Semmes said:

“The North used the machinery of government, in which it had majority power, to enrich the North and despoil the South. The Northern States imposed the tariff which reduced the South to a dependent colonial condition like the Roman provinces. The only difference being that the North falsely claimed to be operating under the law. Slavery had nothing to do with the war for the hypocritical Yankees care nothing for the Negroes. The slavery issue is only a by-play, a device to cover Northern grasp for empire – for power. The North only began the slavery agitation when it began to rob the South by raising the tariff. The slavery issue was only a diversion (a red herring). It was no more than an implement used by a robber to rob the South. Finally, realizing the North would never treat us fairly, the South withdrew from the union. We merely want to be independent. We are fighting for our independence because the North does not want to lose their milk cow and has attacked us, to forcibly hold us to pay their bills.”   [** This paragraph ends the section taken from Charles T. Pace’s book SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE: WHY WAR?]

Indeed, the Southern States, one by one, made the decision to leave the American Union. There would be eleven Southern states in total that seceded and thereby forming a new union of states – The Confederate States of America (ie, “The Confederacy”).  They would secede in two waves, each wave having a compelling reason to do so.  South Carolina would be the first state to leave the historic union known as the “united States of America.”

South Carolina seceded almost immediately after the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States. (He was not included on the ballot in any of the Southern states). She seceded on December 20, 1860. Mississippi followed on January 9, 1981, then Florida on January 10, then Alabama on January 11, Georgia on January 19, Louisiana on January 26, and Texas on February 1. Clearly, these 7 Southern states could not and would not tolerate being in the Union subject to the laws and policies and whims of a government devoted solely to the interests and for the benefit of the Northern states and that’s why they seceded before Lincoln took office.  

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, and a few days later, on March 11, the 7 seceding Southern states adopted a constitution (“The Constitution of the Confederate States”) and officially formed a new union, the Confederate States of America.  During the morning of April 11, Lincoln’s scheme to trick the South into initiating hostilities was realized when South Carolina opened fire on Fort Sumter, commanded by Union Major Robert Anderson and his troops, and the fort surrendered. On April 15, Lincoln sent telegrams to the remaining Southern states, calling them to supply 75,000 troops to put down the “rebellion.”  With the attack on the South and the demand for troops, an additional 4 states decided to secede and join the Confederacy – Virginia on April 17, Arkansas on May 6, North Carolina on May 20, and Tennessee on June 8.

South Carolina. South Carolina has a distinguished history in pushing back against what she believed to be the arbitrary and unconstitutional actions of Congress in enacting the protective tariffs of 1828 and 1832. The Nullification Crisis of 1832 was the result of South Carolina standing up to the federal government in declaring the tariff to be an abuse of power, an unconstitutional exercise of power, and therefore, she refused to enforce it in her state. She would not collect the tariff duties and turn them over to the government. Her passion for and commitment to the principles of limited and constitutional government prompted her to once again to assume her sovereign right to defy the federal government, which at the time of Lincoln’s election, had been serving no purpose at all to South Carolina (or to the other Southern states) except to plunder her wealth. On December 20, in convention, her delegates adopted the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” which read:  

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, “that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; 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.”

They further solemnly declared that whenever any “form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government.” Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies “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.”

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments– Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article “that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: “ARTICLE 1– His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were– separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that 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. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain,

by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with 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.

Adopted December 20, 1860

Mississippi.  Mississippi seceded on January 9, 1861 with the adoption of the following Ordinance of Secession:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Florida. Florida followed suit, seceding from the Union on January 10, with her “Declaration of Causes”:

The people of the State of Florida assembled in Convention having declared the separation of the state from the confederacy of the United States of America and resumed all the powers granted to the Government of that Confederacy, it is due to ourselves to our – late – confederates and to the civilized world that we should set forth the causes which have forced us to adopt this extreme measure fraught as it is with consequences the most momentous. We have not acted in haste or in passion but with the utmost deliberation and from what we regard as immeasurable necessity.

An incursion has been instigated and actually perpetuated into a sister State the inevitable consequences of which were murder rapine and crimes even more horrible. The felon chief of that murderous band has been canonized as a heroic martyr by public meetings by the press and pulpit of all of the Northern States – others of the party have been demanded by the Governor of the State they invaded and their surrender refused by the Governors of two States of the Confederacy, demanded not as fugitives from service but as fugitives from justice charged with treason and murder.

Laws clearly constitutional and as decided to be by the Federal Judiciary as well as by the Courts of all the non slaveholding States where the question has been presented for adjudication have been by counter legislation rendered inoperative, laws without the power to pass which none will deny that the Constitution would not have been adopted.

The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non-slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.

The Congressional halls where the members should meet with fraternal feelings, a just regard for the interests of all the States there represented and respect for the feelings of all its members has been prostituted to the daily denunciation and vituperation of the slave holding States as sanctioning oppression robbery and all villainies, thus subjecting the members from these States to the degradation of gross and constantly repeated insults, and compelling the exclusion from our public press of the debates of our national Legislature or the circulation of the most incendiary matter.

By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.

It is in so many words saying to you we will not burn you at the stake but we will torture you to death by a slow fire we will not confiscate your property and consign you to a residence and equality with the african but that destiny certainly awaits your children – and you must quietly submit or we will force you to submission – men who can hesitate to resist such aggressions are slaves already and deserve their destiny. The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise. It is manifest that they will not because to do so would be the dissolution of the party.

Additional territory is generally only acquired by conquest or purchase. In either case the slaveholding States contribute at least this equal proportion of men or money – we think much more than an equal proportion. The revenues of the General Government are almost entirely derived from duties on importations. It is time that the northern consumer pays his proportion of these duties, but the North as a section receiving back in the increased prices of the rival articles which it manufactures nearly or quite as much as the imposts which it pays thus in effect paying nothing or very little for the support of the government. As to the sacrifice of lives which recent acquisitions have caused how small is the proportion of Northern blood shed or laurels won in the Mexican war.

Last and not least it has been proclaimed that the election of a President is an authoritative approval of all the principles avowed by the person elected and by the party convention which nominated him. Although that election is made by little more than one third of the votes given. But however large the majority may have been to recognize such a principle is to announce a revolution in the government and to substitute an aggregate popular majority for the written constitution without which no single state would have voted its adoption not forming in truth a federal union but a consolidated despotism that worst of despotisms that of an unrestricted sectional and hostile majority, we do not intend to be misunderstood, we do not controvert the right of a majority to govern within the grant of powers in the Constitution.

The representative principle is a sufficient security only where the interest of the representative and the Constituent are identical with the variety of climate productions and employment of labor and capital which exist in the different sections of the American Confederacy creating interests not only diverse but antagonistic.

The majority section may legislate imperiously and ruinously to the interests of the minority section not only without injury but to great benefit and advantage of their own section. In proof of this we need only refer to the fishing bounties, the monopoly of the coast navigation which is possessed almost exclusively by the Northern States and in one word the bounties to every employment of northern labor and capital such a government must in the nature of things and the universal principles of human nature and human conduct very soon lead as it has done to a grinding and degrading despotism.

It is in no weak and imaginary fear of the consequences but that we regard them as certain and inevitable that we are prompted by every consideration of duty and honor and of policy to meet the issue now instead of leaving it to those who are to come after us who will be less able to vindicate their rights and honor, nor is it without the sincerest sorrow that we are about to separate from that noble band of patriots in the nonslaveholding states who have faithfully vindicated our Constitutional rights that we have been impelled by every consideration which should have influence with honorable men to declare our separation from the confederacy of the United States of America trusting for the maintenance of that declaration to the virtue courage and patriotism of our people and to that God who guided our fathers through similar trials and dangers.

Alabama. Alabama seceded the following day, on January 11, with a simple statement declaring her withdrawal from the federal union:

An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact styled “The Constitution of the United States of America”

Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security, therefore:

Be it declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama, in Convention assembled, That the State of Alabama now withdraws, and is hereby withdrawn from the Union known as “the United States of America,” and henceforth ceases to be one of said United States, and is, and of right ought to be a Sovereign and Independent State.

Sec 2. Be it further declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled, That all powers over the Territory of said State, and over the people thereof, heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America, be and they are hereby withdrawn from said Government, and are hereby resumed and vested in the people of the State of Alabama…….  

Georgia.  Georgia seceded a little over a week later, on January 19, with her Ordinance of Secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded– the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections– of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensable for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility.

The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their covenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquility of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.

Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861

Louisiana and Texas

Louisiana seceded on January 26 with a simple statement that she dissolves her association with the federal union and thereby resumes all her sovereign rights. Texas seceded a few days later, on February 1. In her ordinance of secession, unlike the other Southern states, she emphasized her right to support slavery.  (See Texas’ Ordinance of Secession in the Addendum section).

As mentioned earlier, there were two waves of secession, separated by the events at Fort Sumter (April 11) and then Lincoln’s demand for troops to wage war on the South to force the seceding states back into the Union. Texas was the last state to secede in the first wave. The second wave, beginning on April 17, began when Virginia decided to secede.

Virginia. When the Southern states began to secede, Virginia found herself in a difficult position.  She was important and strategic for two major reasons: first, Virginia played an especially prominent and distinguished role in early American history and, second, for her geographical, and hence, strategic location. She was not only sandwiched geographically but also economically, socially, and culturally between the North and the South. For these reasons, Virginians were truly torn over the decision of whether or not to secede. Ultimately, Virginia decided to break her ties with the Union but it wasn’t until the North took military action against the South at Fort Sumter and then immediately demanded that the state provide troops to suppress the southern “rebellion.” Virginia believed that the federal government was acting unconstitutionally and had become too coercive. Her delegates voted in convention, on April 17, to secede and adopted the following Ordinance of Secession:

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.

This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day when ratified by a majority of the votes of the people of this State, cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule to be hereafter enacted.

Done in Convention, in the city of Richmond, on April 17, 1861.  

Arkansas. Arkansas resisted the secession movement and in convention, voted against leaving the Union. But pro-South sentiment was strong. The prevailing opinion in early 1861, however, was that Arkansas should secede if the federal government made war on the Confederate States. When Lincoln tricked South Carolina to fire on the Union installment at Fort Sumter, which sits in her harbor at Charleston, and then when he asked Arkansas to provide a regiment of troops to take up arms against her fellow Southern states to force them back into the Union, Arkansas’ Governor Rector refused. He called another convention and on May 6, the delegates voted to secede from the union, adopting the following Ordinance of Secession:

To dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other states united with her under the compact entitled “The constitution of the United States of America”.

Whereas, In addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th March, A. D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power at Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention, pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any state that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such states, until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this, have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshalled to carry out this inhuman design, and to longer submit to such rule or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas.

Therefore, we the people of the State of Arkansas, in convention assembled, do hereby declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the “ordinance and acceptance of compact,” passed and approved by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, on the 18th day of October, A. D., 1836, whereby it was by said General Assembly ordained that, by virtue of the authority vested in said General Assembly, by the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled at Little Rock, for the purpose of forming a constitution and system of government for said state, the propositions set forth in “an act supplementary to an act entitled an act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes, were freely accepted, ratified and irrevocably confirmed articles of compact and union between the State of Arkansas and the United States,” and all other laws and every other law and ordinance, whereby the State of Arkansas became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby in all respects and for every purpose herewith consistent, repealed, abrogated and fully set aside; and the union now subsisting between the State of Arkansas and the other states, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby forever dissolved.

And we do further hereby declare and ordain, that the State of Arkansas hereby resumes to herself all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the government of the United States of America—that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said government of the United States, and that she is in full possession and exercise of all the rights and sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent state.

We do further ordain and declare, that all rights acquired and vested under the constitution of the United States of America, or of any act or acts of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this state, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect, in no wise altered or impaired, and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.  

Adopted on May 6, 1861

North Carolina. The actions of North Carolina in 1861 continued her long stand for state sovereignty and liberty. At the time, the election of Abraham Lincoln meant two things, which he promised in his campaign – the highest protective tariff on the South, which would cripple its economy, and a stop to the spread of slavery into the western territories (and therefore into any new state to the Union), which would further allow the government to legislate away the rights and interests of the South. The government, as it had been doing for decades, would continue to act as the agent for the North only. Acting in convention, and even knowing what to expect from Lincoln, North Carolina refused to secede. She wanted to remain loyal to the Union. And then Fort Sumter happened. President Lincoln, through his Secretary of War, sent a telegram to the Governor of NC, John Ellis, and demanded the state provide 75,000 troops. Governor Ellis responded in clear terms: “You will get no troops from North Carolina.”  Another convention was called and in a unanimous decision, the delegates voted to secede. North Carolina seceded NOT because of slavery but because she believed that the “common government” should not be used first to plunder the wealth of the South in order to benefit the North and did NOT have the right to force one state to take up arms against a fellow state. For those beliefs, NOT slavery, North Carolina finally decided to separate from the Union. Her Ordinance of Secession was simple and succinct:

An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled “The Constitution of the United States.”

We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.

We do further declare and ordain, that the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States, under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this day of May 20, 1861.

Tennessee. Tennessee was the final Southern state to leave the Union. Her declaration of secession, titled “Declaration of Independence and Ordinance Dissolving the Federal Relations Between the State of Tennessee and the United States of America,” read:

First. We, the people of the State of Tennessee, waiving any expression of opinion as to the abstract doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and independent people, to alter, reform, or abolish our form of government in such manner as we think proper, do ordain and declare that all the laws and ordinances by which the State of Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America are hereby abrogated and annulled, and that all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws and ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the United States, and to absolve ourselves from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred thereto; and do hereby henceforth become a free, sovereign, and independent State.

Second. We furthermore declare and ordain that article 10, sections 1 and 2, of the constitution of the State of Tennessee, which requires members of the General Assembly and all officers, civil and military, to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same are hereby, abrogated and annulled, and all parts of the constitution of the State of Tennessee making citizenship of the United States a qualification for office and recognizing the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of this State are in like manner abrogated and annulled.

Third. We furthermore ordain and declare that all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, or under any laws of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

[Sent by the legislature as a referendum on May 6, 1861 and was approved by the voters by a vote of 104,471 to 47,183 on June 8, 1861]

Border States

The border states – Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri, and the western half of the state of Virginia – were states that shared a border with the North and also a border with the Confederacy. They were slave states that did not – or were not allowed to – secede from the Union. (Note that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to these states, nor to any state belonging to the federal union). Delaware remained neutral during the years 1861-65, but their loyalties were divided. The western half of Virginia wanted to remain loyal to the Union and for that reason, it asked to secede from the state of Virginia and to apply for statehood as an independent state. The “great” president who waged war on the South because he claimed that there was no right to secession, gladly endorsed secession when it benefitted his cause. And so West Virginia was created and joined the Union in June 30, 1863.

Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were prevented from seceding when Lincoln ordered federal troops to control them. Maryland never decided to secede, although, like Delaware, there were clearly divided loyalties. But Kentucky and Missouri did. (Their Ordinances of Secession are listed in the Addendum section). However, because those states were under the control of federal troops, they could not follow through with their intentions and were forced to remain in the Union.

The tragedy of the mid-1800’s, leading up to the war to prevent southern independence (taught in history classes as the “civil war”) was the ambition of politicians and businessmen who put their interests above the rightful role of the “common government” that was gifted to us by our Founding Fathers. Their greed and their disrespect and abuse of their southern counterparts, the farmers and men of agriculture, led to the greatest conflict in American history – north against south, brother fighting brother, families against families, implementation of “total warfare” (targeting civilians) strategy, property and farm animal annihilation, adoption of a “scorched earth” policy, and the needless death of close to 700,000 young Americans. In the end, Lincoln pursued his war with full vigor, like the good tyrant he was, and won. He forever changed the nature of our government in DC – from one of limited responsibilities with the States able to exercise their sovereign powers to one of concentrated powers, with the States being subjugated and powerless. Lincoln waging war to “save the Union” was like a man who beats his wife to save their marriage. Let history judge our 16th president correctly, as it should.

Resources & References:

Charles T. Pace, John Randolph, SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE: Why War?, Shotwell Publishing LLC, 2015; pp. 78-87

“Secession Ordinances of the 13 Confederate States,” Digital History  –

Arkansas Ordinance of Secession –

“The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States,” Civil War, Primary Sources –

“President Lincoln’s 75,000 Volunteers,” Wikipedia –,000_volunteers

Florida’s Declaration of Causes –

Alabama’s Ordinance of Secession –

ADDENDUM I:  Ordinances and Declarations of Secession Adopted by Missouri and Kentucky, and other States


Maryland did NOT decide to secede.

Strategically, Lincoln had to send federal (union) troops into Maryland because Union troops had to go through the state to reach the nation’s capital in Washington DC. Had Maryland joined the Confederacy, Washington would have been surrounded. Maryland’s state legislature rejected secession in the spring of 1861, at the same time refusing to re-open its rail links with the North. It requested that Union troops be removed from the state, but Lincoln refused. The state legislature did not want to secede, but it also did not want to aid in killing her southern neighbors in order to force them back into the Union. Maryland wished for neutrality.

But Lincoln’s treatment of the state was nothing short of tyrannical. To protect the national capital, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned persons without charges or trials. Among those imprisoned without the right of habeas corpus was a sitting U.S. congressman as well the mayor, police chief, entire Board of Police, and the city council of Baltimore.  US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, acting in his capacity as a circuit judge (the custom at the time), ruled on June 4, 1861, in Ex parte Merryman that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but the president ignored the ruling in order to meet a so-called national emergency. On September 17, 1861, the day the legislature reconvened, federal troops arrested 27 state legislators (one-third of the Maryland General Assembly), without charging them. They were held temporarily at Fort McHenry, and later released when Maryland was secured for the Union. Because a large part of the legislature was now imprisoned, the session was cancelled and representatives did not consider any additional anti-war measures.

Remember how Jefferson described and characterized the actions of the King of Great Britain: “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.”

The song “Maryland, My Maryland” was written to attack Lincoln’s action in blocking pro-Confederate elements. Maryland contributed troops to both the Union (60,000) and the Confederate (25,000) armies.

As the Declaration articulates: “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.”



An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.

Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and

Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.

This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

Approved, October 31, 1861. [This act was passed by a rump legislature called into session in Neosho, Mo., by Gov. C.F. Jackson (who had been removed from office by the State Convention)]



Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and

Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore,

Be it ordained, that we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties.

And whereas, the majority of the Legislature of Kentucky have violated their most solemn pledges made before the election, and deceived and betrayed the people; have abandoned the position of neutrality assumed by themselves and the people, and invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln; have abdicated the Government in favor of a military despotism which they have placed around themselves, but cannot control, and have abandoned the duty of shielding the citizen with their protection; have thrown upon our people and the State the horrors and ravages of war, instead of attempting to preserve the peace, and have voted men and money for the war waged by the North for the destruction of our constitutional rights; have violated the expressed words of the constitution by borrowing five millions of money for the support of the war without a vote of the people; have permitted the arrest and imprisonment of our citizens, and transferred the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive to a military commission of partisans; have seen the writ of habeas corpus suspended without an effort for its preservation, and permitted our people to be driven in exile from their homes; have subjected our property to confiscation and our persons to confinement in the penitentiary as felons, because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrances of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore,

Be it further ordained, that the unconstitutional edicts of a factious majority of a Legislature thus false to their pledges, their honor, and their interests are not law, and that such a government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free people, and that we do therefore declare that the people are thereby absolved from all allegiance to said government, and that they have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties.

[Adopted on November 20, 1861, by a “Convention of the People of Kentucky”]



A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions– a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a ‘higher law’ than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long-continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons– We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on February 2, 1861.

ADDENDUM II:  Lincoln’s Declaration Calling for Troops to Suppress the “Rebellion”  



WHEREAS the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law.

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured. I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at twelve o’clock, noon, on Thursdays the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

By the President:ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Secretary of State WILLIAM H. SEWARD

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

JAMES MADISON: Four Steps to Stop Unconstitutional Federal Laws & Programs

by Michael Boldin, founder and president of the Tenth Amendment Center, Dec. 15, 2016

Writing in Federalist #46, James Madison provided a 4-step strategy to bring down federal programs, without waiting on the federal government to limit its own power.

Madison begins, in the second paragraph: “Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these…” The federal government, he continues, is quite different.
In discussing a comparison between the state and federal governments, he wrote (in The Federalist No. 46):

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

In short, Madison said that when the federal government passes an unconstitutional measure there are powerful methods to oppose it – amongst the people and in the states. He also pointed out that those same methods were available even for warrantable, that is constitutional, measures.

They are:
1. Disquietude of the people – Madison expected the people would throw a fit when the feds usurped power – even using the word “repugnance” to describe their displeasure. That leads to the next step.

2. Repugnance and Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union – Noncompliance. The #1 dictionary of the time defined repugnance as “disobedient; not obsequious” (compliant). If you want to stop the federal government, you have to disobey them. Madison also suggested that people would perhaps directly refuse to cooperate with federal agents. This is an approach we preach here every day at the Tenth Amendment Center. James Madison apparently knew what we know today. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce their so-called laws.

3, The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State – Here Madison envisions governors formally protesting federal actions. This not only raises public awareness; executive leadership will also lead to the next step – legislative action.

4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions – Madison keeps this open-ended, and in the years soon after, which I’ll cover shortly, we learn how both he and Thomas Jefferson applied this step.
Madison also told us that if several adjoining States would do the same it would be an effective tool to stop federal acts. To repeat, he said that doing this “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed recently and said that people need to stop enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. He also said that if you could get an entire state doing this, it would make federal laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.


Thomas Jefferson followed up on this in 1798 with the Kentucky Resolutions, with the same kind of advice. That year, the Adams administration passed a wildly unconstitutional attack on the freedom of speech with the Alien and Sedition Acts. In response, while sitting as vice-president, Jefferson secretly drafted the Kentucky Resolutions, and here’s a little of what he wrote:

“The several states composing the united States of America are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government……… “where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a Nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

He continued: “… that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

Madison was consistent in his views on this. In 1798, he also drafted and help pass something known as the Virginia Resolutions, a state-level “legislative device” in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Here’s a key part:

“In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Like Madison advised in Federalist #46, both he and Thomas Jefferson advised a state-level response to dangerous federal acts.

Jefferson told us that a “Nullification is the rightful remedy.” And Madison told us that states are “duty-bound to Interpose.” (to intercede)

When Daniel Webster called on these same principles in response to military conscription plans during the war of 1812, he said: “The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist; and their highest obligations bind them to the preservation of their own rights and the liberties of their people”


You are not supposed to wait 2 or 4 years for some new politicians to get in office and give you permission to be free.

You are not supposed to wait 2 or 4 or 6 years for some federal court to tell you, “ok, you be free now.”

You are supposed to stand up resist, refuse to comply and nullify unconstitutional federal acts – as soon as they happen.

And that resistance needs to be your first response, not your last.

That’s a message we work to spread far and wide every single day. Brick-by-brick. Person-by-person, building a strong foundation for the Constitution and liberty.

Source: Michael Boldin, “James Madison: Four Steps to Stop Federal Programs,” The Tenth Amendment Center, December 15, 2016. Referenced at:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

I Am the American Flag

I AM THE FLAG, by Howard Schnauber

I am the flag of the United States of America.

My name is Old Glory.

I fly atop the world’s tallest buildings.

I stand watch in America’s halls of justice.

I fly majestically over institutions of learning.

I stand guard with power in the world.

Look up and see me.

I stand for peace, honor, truth and justice.

I stand for freedom. I am confident.

I am arrogant. I am proud.

When I am flown with my fellow banners,

My head is a little higher,

My colors a little truer.

I bow to no one!

I am recognized all over the world.

I am worshipped – I am saluted.

I am loved – I am revered.

I am respected – I am feared.

I have fought in every battle of every war for more than 200 years.

I was flown at Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Shiloh and Appamatox.

I was there at San Juan Hill, the trenches of France, in the Argonne Forest, Anzio, Rome and the beaches of Normandy.

Guam, Okinawa, Korea and KheSan, Saigon, Vietnam know me.

I was there. I led my troops.

I was dirty, battleworn and tired,

but my soldiers cheered me and I was proud.

I have been burned, torn and trampled on the streets of countries

I have helped set free. It does not hurt for I am invincible.

I have been soiled upon, burned, torn and trampled in the streets of my country.

And when it’s done by those whom I’ve served in battle – it hurts.

But I shall overcome – for I am strong.

I have slipped the bonds of earth and stood watch over the uncharted frontiers of space from my vantage point on the moon.

I have born silent witness to all of America’s finest hours.

But my finest hours are yet to come.

When I am torn into strips and used as bandages for my wounded comrades on the battle field,

when I am flown at halfmast to honor my soldier,

or when I lie in the trembling arms of a grieving parent at the grave of their fallen son or daughter,

I am proud.

I am the flag of the United States of America.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments