IS NULLIFICATION A VIABLE OPTION TO CURB FEDERAL ABUSE?

Posted on June 18, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

By Diane Rufino, June 17, 2021

On June 15, I posted a question and some of my personal thoughts on the matter. I noted that our nation’s culture and politics has perhaps reached a tipping point where two competing ideologies cannot get along and the rift is actively destroying the country we all love. I asked if it is time to think of some serious remedies, including the necessity of the states’ invoking the doctrine of Nullification (which Thomas Jefferson himself termed “the “rightful remedy” to curb federal abuse), the possibility of splitting the states up, having one entire part of the country secede, holding an Article V Convention, etc etc.  My point for the post was to get people thinking that if we don’t act soon, and act with wisdom, prudence, and with the care and concern that our Founding Fathers did over 200 years ago, we might very well face the loss of our great constitutional republic.

Two days later, I received a response to that (short) post by a man named Christopher Shelley (junehog.wordpress.com).  He wrote: “Nullification is not a Constitutional option. We had this argument — it’s called the Civil War. It was a bad idea when suggested by Jefferson; continued to be bad (in addition to unconstitutional) when advocated by John C. Calhoun, and remains a bad idea. I understand you are unhappy, but the only Constitutional remedy for your unhappiness are further elections.”

First of all, Mr. Shelley believes that elections are the only way we can address problems in our country. He assumes, for some reason, that we citizens have any modicum of confidence in their results. Well, we don’t. that option – that “ONLY option,” as he puts it, is no option at all. As we have learned from the 1960 election, an outcome can be predetermined. As we have learned most shockingly in 2020, election apparatus can be rigged, software can be hacked, votes tampered with, and again, the outcome can be pre-determined. That’s hardly a testament to a “democratic” process. 

Second of all, he believes that the issue of Nullification – an extra-constitutional principle, a powerful tool in the arsenal of States’ powers – was “settled” (ie, de-legitimized) by Lincoln’s Civil War.  Let’s be clear…. Abraham Lincoln was the greatest tyrant this country ever had and our country and our government has never been the same since. He told an oath of office, per Article II, Section 1, clause 8:  Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  He took a sacred vow to uphold the Constitution, not to distort it or destroy it.  For that, he should have been brought up on impeachment charges and removed from office. Alternatively, he should have been tried as a traitor – a traitor to the Constitution.

One man alone cannot undo the foundations of a country, particularly when it is for purely financial reasons (not genuine concern to the integrity of the Union) and when it could be used to justify him invading the southern states and subjugating them back into the Union. (As I have always said: “Lincoln using force against the South to save the Union is like a man beating his wife to save the marriage.”)  Lincoln had no right to advocate that the Constitution created a “perpetual Union” (thus never allowing a state to secede) when such words were NOT once mentioned in the document. (They were, however, mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, and we all know what happened with that flimsy union…..  All the states seceded from that Union and eventually formed a new Union based on the US Constitution).

As I mentioned above, Lincoln was a tyrant, and as history would have it, he was assassinated for being such a usurper. There was no reason that once Lincoln was out of the picture, the government could have condemned his actions and reversed his policies – either offering the South the opportunity to re-think their decision to secede and form a new country or to officially recognize their status as the Confederate States of America.  

Third, the Civil War did nothing to settle the issue of Nullification. You probably meant to say that the war settled the issue of secession, which it temporarily did but only through the use of force.  But again, an act of one tyrant does not destroy fundamental principles upon which a country was founded.  Our country is too important to permit its founding values to be ignored or perverted. (Or discarded because it doesn’t suit the government’s purposes).

So the short answer to Mr. Shelley is: (1) Nullification is, and always will be, the “rightful remedy” to curb federal abuse, and (2) Taking our chances at the ballot box every 2 – 4 years, when elections are not honest, trustworthy, or transparent, is NOT the “ONLY constitutional option. People should spend more time reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. More serious options need to be entertained. And by people a whole lot more open-minded than Mr. Shelley and more committed to the faithful adherence to the US Constitution and to helping to preserve our republic.

I welcome comments like Mr. Shelley’s. I welcome the opportunity to explain why Nullification is a viable option. I welcome the opportunity to explain why Nullification is the PERFECT option… indeed, as Jefferson wrote, “the rightful remedy.”

Just like Gene Kizer Jr. (author of the book “Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States”) and Leonard M. Scruggs (author of the book “The Un-Civil War (Shattering the Historical Myths)” welcome the opportunity to explain why Secession is a legitimate option when faced with federal tyranny, and just as Albert Taylor Bledsoe (author of the 1866 book “Is Davis a Traitor? Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861?”) eagerly welcomed the opportunity to defend Jefferson Davis and the right of the southern states to secede, I welcome the opportunity to discuss Nullification.

First, let’s discuss what “Nullification” is.  To be clear, it was not the brainchild of Thomas Jefferson, as many contend. Jefferson was just the person who articulated the doctrine best. [See later, The Kentucky Resolves of 1798 and then The Kentucky Resolves of 1799].  Nullification is actually part of the law of compacts; it is a natural remedy belonging to a sovereign state. Thomas Woods explains: “Nullification is the Jeffersonian idea that the states of the American Union must judge the constitutionality of the acts of their agent, the federal government, since no impartial arbiter between them exists,” and if the state or states determine that such act, policy, executive action, or federal judicial ruling is not consistent with powers delegated to the federal government, then that state or states reserve the right to NULLIFY such act, policy, executive action, or ruling. Because the particular power is not delegated to the government, such action is deemed unconstitutional, it is without authority, it is, from its inception, null and void and therefore unenforceable.

There is, obviously, no provision in the Constitution that explicitly authorizes nullification. That was not Jefferson’s point. He, and later John C. Calhoun, suggested that it was in the nature of compacts that no one side could have the exclusive right of interpreting its terms. This was especially true in the case of the federal compact (ie, the US Constitution), since Jefferson and Calhoun contended that the federal government was not a party to it, having itself been brought into being by the joint action of the states in creating a compact among themselves. Since the federal government was merely the agent of the states, it could hardly presume to tell the states, with no room for disagreement or appeal, what their own Constitution meant.

A serious question is this: Will the federal government police itself?  Will it call itself out and ask the states not to enforce their laws and policies?  Never. It must be the co-equal sovereigns, the individual States, who must take on that responsibility.

Thomas Woods calls Nullification “the Jeffersonian Brake on Government.”

How are they tasked with this responsibility?  Our government system is designed and described as one of “Dual Sovereignty.”  We have 2 sets of sovereigns – a federal government and the group of individual States – each having the rights of a sovereign as divided by the US Constitution. In fact, it could be argued that the States are the more powerful sovereigns as they are responsible for a greater number of issues – internal issues (such as voting, education, criminal matters, property matters, certification, etc etc)  Each is sovereign over its specified objects. As for the federal government, it is sovereign only as to the express objects delegated to it. And as for the States, they are sovereign as to everything else (except those objects prohibited to it under Article I, Section 9). The Tenth Amendment is a restatement of the concept of federalism. [“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.”]  

Dual Sovereignty is a unique feature of our American government and is the ideal system to keep each sovereign in check. Each sovereign is naturally expected to be a jealous guardian over its sphere of power. And if and when the other dares to invade into the other’s sphere, that other sovereign has every natural (sovereign) right to push back and reclaim that sphere of power. This is federalism. This is how it is supposed to work. It is the greatest, the most effective of checks and balances against a central government that always pushes the limits, uses the courts to expand its power

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 41, “For what purpose could the enumeration of particulars be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” In 1792, he said: If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.”

The issue of which powers were delegated to the federal government exploded into rigorous and contentious debates at the state ratifying conventions (in which each state individually elected delegates given the task of deciding whether or not to adopt the Constitution drafted in Philadelphia in 1787). Time and time again, the Constitution was characterized by its supporters as granting only those powers that the states “expressly delegated” to it. That means the states themselves entered the Union with the express assurance that this was how the Constitution would be understood.

At the New York Convention, even Alexander Hamilton, one of the strongest advocates of a powerful central government and among the least committed to the cause of states’ rights, declared that, in all federations, the proposed American one not excepted, “whatever is not expressly given to the Federal Head is reserved to the members.” The people, moreover, had “already delegated their sovereignty and their powers to their several state governments, and these cannot be recalled and given to another, without an express act.”  When New York ratified the Constitution, it accompanied its ratification with a brief rendition of the nature of the Union it understood itself to be joining.: “Every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the United States of America, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments.”

The people of half a dozen states were specifically assured that the proposed federal government would indeed possess only those powers expressly delegated to it. For example, at the Pennsylvania Convention, James Wilson said that “everything not expressly mentioned will be presumed to be purposely omitted,”  At the North Carolina Convention, Governor Samuel Johnston explained that “Congress cannot assume any other powers than those expressly given them, without a palpable violation of the Constitution,” adding that the “powers of Congress are all circumscribed, defined, and clearly laid down. So far they may go, but no farther.”  Charles Pinckney told the convention in South Carolina that the federal government could not execute or assume any powers except those that “were expressly delegated.”  James Madison emphasized the same point repeatedly both in his essays and at his state’s ratifying convention. In Federalist No. 40, he noted that “the general powers are limited, and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.”  In Federalist No. 45, he observed: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”  

At the Virginia Convention, Madison noted that the federal government would have “defined and limited objects beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”  Let us be reminded that it was James Madison, for all intents and purposes, who WROTE the US Constitution. He of all people should know what the words, phrases, and provisions mean. And then on top of that, he wrote most of the essays in the Federalist Papers, specifically, and in great detail, to explain the document to all the states who were ready to debate it and take up the decision for its adoption. Many of the states, in fact, did come to rely on those essays, and in compact law (ie, contract law), any definitions, extraneous documentation (such as the Federalist Papers), explanations, provisos, comments, attending clauses, etc that touch on and influence their understanding of the document become PART OF THE COMPACT. Furthermore, they would apply to all member states equally.

In 1789, the Salem Mercury of Massachusetts published Roger Sherman’s “Observations on the New Federal Constitution, and the Alterations That Have Been Proposed as Amendments.”  Sherman was a Connecticut lawyer who signed the Constitution and who went on to become a US congressman and then senator. Sherman concurred with Madison: “The powers vested in the federal government are particularly defined so that each state still retains its sovereignty in what concerns its own internal government, and a right to exercise every power of a sovereign State, not expressly delegated to the government of the United States.”

Samuel Chase, as partisan a Federalist as ever lived, declared in the case Calder v. Bull (1798) that “the several State legislatures retain all powers of legislation, delegated to them by the State constitutions; which are not expressly taken away by the Constitution of the United States.”

And then we have the writings of our Founding Fathers, Supreme Court justices, and other important figures, on what it means to be “constitutional”:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”   —  Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v.Madison, 1803

“Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.”   — Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88

“…the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.”   —  Alexander Hamilton, Elliot, 2:362

“This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.… It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.”   —  William Davie, Pennsylvania, p. 277

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”   —  Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 78

“Clearly, a federal law which is contrary to the Constitution is no law at all; it is null, void, invalid. And a Supreme Court decision, which is not a ‘law,’ has no ‘supremacy’—even if it is faithfully interpreting the Constitution. So it is the height of absurdity to claim that a Supreme Court decision that manifestly violates the Constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land.’”   —  William Jasper

As it turns out, our earliest administrations were issuing unconstitutional laws. President George Washington ignored Thomas Jefferson on the matter of a national bank (not a power delegated to the government in the Constitution) and instead, sided with his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton to request a bill to create a National Bank.  Following so, the House of Representatives passed a bill establishing the first Bank of the United States, the Senate concurred, and on February 25, 1791, President Washington signed it into law. The bill was unconstitutional.  In the next administration, with President John Adams in the White House, the United States was involved in a quasi-war with France. Hostilities were brewing and all-out war was a possibility. Adams oversaw the passage, on June 18, 1798, of four pieces of controversial legislation known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The obvious unconstitutionality of these acts, most especially the Sedition Act, undermined and marred the Adams’ administration and in fact, helped Thomas Jefferson to win the presidency four years later in 1800.

Our great Founders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison felt the time was right to address what should and could be done when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it and passes unconstitutional laws. In 1798, they drafted a series of resolutions for the several state legislatures to “nullify” those unconstitutional federal laws. The resolutions are famously known as The Virginia Resolves of 1798 (Madison), The Kentucky Resolves of 1798 (Jefferson), and The Kentucky Resolves of 1799 (Jefferson).

In his Virginia Resolves of 1798, James Madison wrote:

“RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that 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.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in his Kentucky Resolves of 1798, of the specific remedy of Nullification:

1. RESOLVED, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, ……..

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, 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;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, titled “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also 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,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, titled “An Act Concerning Aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

5. Resolved, ………

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple _order_ of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act titled “An Act Concerning Aliens,” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law;” and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense,” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without hearing witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force…

7. Resolved, ……..

8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a NULLIFICATION of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) 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: ………   In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens, and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.

Jefferson took one step further and stream-lined the Kentucky Resolves above, to give us the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, Again, he refers specifically to the term “Nullification: 

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy……..

Let me ask you, Mr. Shelley: If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. As it stands now, the federal government has a monopoly on the meaning of the Constitution (through its appointment to the federal bench of liberal and progressive justices who consider the Constitution a “living, breathing document” rather than a compact memorializing the intentions of the States when they delegated the specific powers to the central government, what the provisions were intended to mean, and the scope of those powers). Whatever power it wants and whatever power it doesn’t want the States to have, it will usually be successful at the Supreme Court.

If Nullification is taken off the table (“It was a bad idea then and a bad idea now,” according to Mr. Shelley), if this most powerful weapon in the arsenal of states to check the abuses of the federal government is to taken from them, then we essentially have no effective way to prevent the federal government from doing whatever it wants……. (As Madison warned in Federalist No. 41).

I don’t know about you, Mr. Shelley, but I’ll take Thomas Jefferson’s word over yours.  I’ll take it every time. He’s the one with the authority and the insight as to what our founding principles are. He wrote the Declaration of Independence for God’s sake. And he wrote, or helped to write, a lot of other important founding documents as well

The Tenth Amendment expressly informs that the states retain all their sovereign powers (minus any power voluntarily and expressly delegated to the federal government or any prohibited to them by the Constitution). Whenever the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it by that document, it naturally encroaches on the powers of another sovereign (ie, the States, or even the People themselves). The States need to defend their sovereignty or they will lose it – little by little, inch by inch., legislation but legislation, court ruling by court ruling. That is why Nullification is a founding principle. It is the companion to the Tenth Amendment. It is the teeth of the Tenth Amendment. The States, as Jefferson and Madison make clear, have every right to declare actions of the government unconstitutional, declare them “null and void,” and refuse to enforce them. When they do so, proper government balance is restored. That is what Nullification is all about and that is why it is such a powerful tool.

People who don’t understand the power of this doctrine should stop bashing it and start to read up on it. The longevity of our country just may depend on its use.

Mr. Shelley, you accuse me of being “unhappy,” and I am. I’m unhappy and frustrated.  And I accuse you of being close-minded because you fear that nullification would do nothing useful except produce chaos.   

I hope what I’ve written here makes some sense to you and you will give the topic a second chance.


References:

Thomas E. Woods, Jr, NULLIFICATION – How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, Regnery Publishing, Inc (Washington DC), 2010.

The Kentucky Resolves of 1799 –  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/kenres.asp

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798-1799, Jack Miller Center – https://jackmillercenter.org/cd-resources/virginia-kentucky-resolutions/

Thomas Woods, “Nullification: The Jeffersonian Brake on Government

A Government Cannot Determine the Scope of Its Own Powers,” Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), March 1, 2002.   Referenced at:  https://fee.org/articles/nullification-the-jeffersonian-brake-on-government/

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

AN OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY & MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Posted on June 17, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

by Diane Rufino, May 2017 – June 17, 2021

INTRODUCTION –

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT –

The history behind the Second Amendment goes back well before the colonies were even settled. It goes back to the very history of the fore-fathers and founders of our country, the “subjects” of England who were often targeted by the King as political or religious enemies, had their firearms confiscated, often had their property stripped from them, and sometimes found themselves in jail for no reason other than they were disfavored and perhaps seen as a threat. It goes back most definitely and clearly to the history of England, the country that gave us so much of our common law, gave us the precursor to our US Bill of Rights, and gave us much of the foundation upon which we designed and crafted our Declaration of Independence, our constitutions (federal and state), and our systems of government.

In medieval England, there was no royal army. There wasn’t enough money or control to have such a formal army. Instead, the King would have to count on his subjects to fight for him – to fight for the kingdom. And so, by law, the King established a citizen militia. By law – The Militia Laws – every make subject beginning at a certain age, was required to own guns, have ammunition, be expected to know how to operate them, and show up for regular training sessions. Citizens could be called up at any time by the King to form the militia and so they always had to be in a state of readiness. Henry VIII, who reigned from 1509 – 1547, lowered the age of the males required to be trained to use guns. Under his rule, fathers were required to have their sons from age 7 and older trained in the use of firearms. “Bring them up in shooting!” was the motto.  

In other words, citizens (or “subjects”), had a DUTY to keep and bear arms.

150 years, in 1688, this medieval “duty” to keep and bear arms became an “indubitable right.”  [That is, a fundamental right, an unquestioned right, a non-disputed right)

How did this happen??

Gun ownership transformed into a “right” during the tumultuous 17th century in England, and for understandable reasons. The transformation arose out of a conflict between King Charles I and Parliament. Remember, Parliament is the so-called “People’s House.” Having a “people’s house” or Parliament was one of the rights the barons wanted King John to recognize in the Magna Carta – the “Great Charter.” If they were to be taxed, which they often were (and which they also passed along to those below them, the tenants on their land) to fund the Kings’ endless battles and wars, they wanted to have representation in those discussions and decisions.

As it turned out, Parliament refused to tax the people to provide the funding for the wars that King Charles wanted to fight and so he disbanded the Parliament. He did so several times. He went on to tax the people directly himself, thus violating their right to representation. (Where have we heard the protest “No Taxation without Representation!” before ?)  Eventually, in 1642, civil war broke out and certain members of Parliament (called a “rump” Parliament), led by Oliver Cromwell, brought charges against Charles for high treason. He was captured, tried, convicted, and beheaded on January 30, 1649. His sons, the future King Charles II and King James II had fled to France at the time.

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

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

And so finally, inn 1688, the English people had had enough. They, together with a union of Parliamentarians, invited William and Mary of Orange (Netherlands) to take over the throne and depose King James II. (Mary was the daughter of James II). The members of Parliament and the people themselves promised they would oust James and offer no resistance to William and Mary IF they agreed to sign a Bill of Rights acknowledging the rights of the people and promised to be held to that agreement lest they would forfeit the monarchy. William and Mary agreed. They sailed from Orange and were met with the support of the citizenry in what would be known as the “Bloodless Revolution” (or “Glorious Revolution”). James was forced to flee.

A new Parliament was formed (not one loyal to James, who was still alive and still with a claim to the throne) and this new Parliament decided that a Bill of Rights was necessary to re-affirm all the essential rights asserted in the Magna Carta and all the rights that had been imperiled by James II. In order to tie the new King and Queen to an obligation to abide by these rights, the same statue that elevated William and Mary to the throne also contained those rights – the “Charter of Rights,” aka “The Charter of Ancient and Indubitable Rights,” aka, “The English Bill of Rights of 1689.”  In fact, this Bill of Rights of 1689 was referred to as “The New Magna Carta.” The statute created a contractual obligation. It tied the right of the King and Queen to rule to an obligation to respect the rights contained in the Charter.

One of those rights was the right of British subjects to have arms for their defense (self-defense) “suitable to their position and allowed by law.”  Actually, only Protestants were recognized to have that right. England had just gone through the Protestant Reformation.

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

Indeed, by 1688, and then enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the duty to be armed became a right. One of the rights of Englishmen because the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and of course, to resist a tyrannical King or government. Never again would a lawful citizen be stripped of his firearm by the King or an act of Parliament.

Between 1803 and 1776, the rights of Englishmen became the rights of Americans. After all, the New World was claimed by England and the colonists considered them English subjects, entitled to all the rights and protections afforded to those in England proper. In 1661, with the constant threat of hostile Indians and hostile French and Dutch settlers and traders, the colony of Virginia required all able-bodied men to have firearms and to be trained monthly in their use. Each county had its chief militia officer.

As relations with Great Britain began to deteriorate, especially after the Boston Tea Party and then the punishing response by the King and Parliament with the Intolerable Acts (which shut down Boston Harbor, abolished the Massachusetts colonial government, installed a British General (General Gage) and his redcoats in its place, and established the Quartering Act), the colonists began to collect firearms and stockpile gunpowder and artillery. And not just in Massachusetts, but in other colonies as well. Word was spreading among the colonies of the growing tyranny by the King.

Anyway, someone tipped off General Gage to the colonial stockpile at Concord, as well as the location of the “traitors” – those Sons of Liberty leaders, such as Samuel Adams, John Hancock, etc, who organized the infamous Boston Tea Party – which was in the town of Lexington, and on the night of April 18, 1775, he sent a column of soldiers to destroy the supplies. Their trip led them first through Lexington, where they encountered a small group of colonial militiamen. A shot went off (no one knows how it happened, or from which side), but the response was immediate. Shots rang out and an armed conflict between the mighty empire of Great Britain and Massachusetts had begun. The revolution began.

Virginians began to stockpile their ammunition in Williamsburg, in anticipation that British troops would come to subjugate them as well. A general alarm was spreading among the colonies, fueled by great patriots like Samuel Adams and John Hancock, Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine – that the British were removing gunpowder from the public stock in order to render the colonists unable to resist the Crown….  Just as King Charles II and King James II had done to their subjects approximately 100 years earlier in England. It was this general alarm that prompted Patrick Henry to introduce resolutions at a secret meeting of the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775 at the Old St. John’s Church in Richmond to raise up the militia in every country and train them as quickly as possible. He believed so strongly that this was necessary that he gave that impassioned speech we all associate with him – “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Patrick Henry’s resolutions read simply:

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

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

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

Perhaps the most rousing speech delivered in colonial America was by Patrick Henry and it was in support of these resolutions:  You may have read this speech, or at least the last paragraph of it in school, but I strongly urge you to read it now in its entirety. As you do, note his references to what has been happening in Boston, in Concord and Lexington, the imposition of the retaliatory Intolerable Acts, and the threat of the redcoats moving down to Virginia and other colonies with the same intent. Also, keep in mind the mindset of our Founders… men like Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Lee, Washington who were keenly aware of the history of the people England, the continued struggle to assert their rights, to seek assurances, to have them violated, and only to have to try to re-assert them again, and again…..

Here is the entire speech: 

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Henry was right, war was coming. And he was also right about the intent of the British to disarm the colonies, to subjugate them (because, after all, the King and the Parliament as well, considered the colonists as annoying little children).  Just weeks after his famous speech at St. John’s Church, Virginia’s royal governor ordered British sailors to raid the armory at Williamsburg and to take the gunpowder back aboard their ships, which they did.

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

Thus, the American revolution started over our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Tensions between the colonies and Great Britain may have started over the right not to be taxed without representation in Parliament (the body from which such taxing measures arose), but the actual revolution itself erupted over the actions of the Crown to disarm the people.

So, the colonies fought for their independence, for their rights and for the right of self-determination and self-preservation as free men and women. And they won… against all odds, they won.

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

The question for this article is: How did we get the language of our Second Amendment and what does it actually mean? 

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

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

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

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

Then he addressed the right to arms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, the Second Amendment actually articulates two separate thoughts and two separate rights, but both connected by the right to defense and self-defense. The intentional, conscious effort was to express the right to arms in the broadest terms possible, to be understood in its broadest sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

Diane Rufino, “Making Sense of the Meaning and Intent of the Second Amendment,” May 24, 2017.  Referenced from her blogsite:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2017/05/25/making-sense-of-the-meaning-and-intent-of-the-second-amendment-its-not-hard-folks/

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

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

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why So Many Empty Churches?

Posted on June 16, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

[ This pic is of St. Barnabus Church, in Snow Hill, N.C. ]

The following exceptional article was written by my friend, Reverend Mark Creech, head of the Christian Action League (based in Raleigh, NC). He posted it on the Christian Action League website on June 11, 2021. You can access the original article here: https://christianactionleague.org/why-so-many-empty-churches-a-reminder-and-warning-for-southern-baptists/

WHY SO MANY EMPTY CHURCHES? A REMINDER AND WARNING FOR SOUTHERN BAPTISTS.

In my hometown, prominently sitting high on a hill, is an old and empty Episcopal church. No one attends there anymore. It’s a historical edifice, which serves no purpose for the community except to reminisce about the way things were. For me, that old church depicts both a reminder and a warning.

In an interesting article for The Atlantic, Jonathan Merritt writes about “America’s Epidemic of Empty Churches.” Merritt says:

“Many of our nation’s churches can no longer afford to maintain their structures – 6000 to 10,000 churches die each year in America – and that number will likely grow. Though more than 70 percent of our citizens still claim to be Christian, congregational participation is less central to many Americans’ faith than it once was. Most denominations are declining as a share of the overall population, and donations to congregations have been falling for decades. Meanwhile, religiously unaffiliated Americans, nicknamed the ‘nones,’ are growing as a share of the U.S. population.”

Merritt’s assessment matches a recent report by Yonat Shimron, a Religious News Service reporter, who notes a study from the Center for Analytics, Research and Data, affiliated with the United Church of Christ. That study says “that in the decade ending in 2020, 3,850 to 7,700 houses of worship close per year in the United States, or 75 to 150 congregations per week.” Shimron added these figures are expected to “double or triple in the wake of the pandemic.”

Many reasons could be offered as to why such declines are occurring, but most of them, I believe, would only address symptoms and not the root cause.

In an article for ChurchLeadership.org, Dr. Richard J. Krejcir makes an astute observation:

“What we hear as responses from most of our church leaders are the excuses of ‘cultural decay’ and ‘changing values’ and that ‘the average American views the church with little regard.’ These are authentic factors, but they are just symptoms. The bigger question seems to be what led up to these ‘symptoms?’ What led to the problems of cultural decay and the downgrading of moral absolutes? There is more to it than changing values; after all, a change in values has a root cause. A symptom is usually caused by a systemic disease or an explicit psychological problem.”

It may sound like an oversimplification of the dilemma, but I believe the real issue has to do with the sincerity and earnestness of our love for Christ.

In Revelation, chapter 2, is recorded Jesus’ letter to the church of Ephesus. The letter commends the church’s good points, such as their labor, patience, intolerance of those who worked evil, and their discernment of religious fraud. Nevertheless, said Jesus, “I have this against you, that you have lost your first love” (Rev. 2:4).

Some scholars say it’s unclear whether the reference talks about their diminished love for God or their love for each other, but it’s hard to read the Scriptures and not conclude that the two passions hang together.

Thus, Christ commands them to return to their first love, or he will remove their lampstand from its place, which speaks to the power of their influence.

In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Dr. Henry Morris says that in Ephesus, “the warmth of their original love – for one another, for the lost, for the Lord was beginning to cool. But this sad testimony can be applied to multitudes of churches in every age, and every church needs continually to search its heart and test its love…the Ephesian warning still applies.”

Today, there is no church in the Turkish location once known as Ephesus. In fact, there is no Ephesus. Islam has been firmly established in the region – a region the apostle Paul himself once thoroughly evangelized. One can only wonder what that area might be like now if only the church had maintained and practiced its first love.

Do you remember what first love was like when you fell in love with your wife or husband? You could barely do anything but think of him or her. You were thrilled at your newfound relationship. You wanted to tell everyone. You couldn’t do enough for the one you loved. You took every opportunity to be with your beloved. Such is first love, which tends to wane if we’re not careful.

It can be this way in our churches too.

“We can build our lovely buildings and make them worshipful and comfortable. We can sing the sweetest music and listen to the most orthodox sermons,” wrote the late Southern Baptist preacher, W. Hershell Ford. “We can have everything just right, but if it is not all done in love for Christ, it means nothing, and God is greatly displeased. Every true church is started in love. The people have a love for Christ, making them work and sweat and pray to get the church going. Then when things are running smoothly, the danger of leaving love out arises.”

When my fellow Southern Baptists meet in Nashville, Tennessee, for their annual convention in the next few days, I hope they will remember this lesson from our Lord about losing our first love.

This convention meeting is expected to host one of the largest, if not the largest group of messengers in convention history. A firestorm has already started, and some serious wrongs may need to be righted. This can be a necessary part of church life and shouldn’t be neglected. Still I earnestly pray it’s not forgotten that no amount of religious orthodoxy, labor, or loyalty can ever suffice for a deficit in Christian love.

To forget this will only leave our great nation strewn with more empty church buildings. It may even mean the loss of our country.

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

HAS THE TIME FINALLY COME?

Posted on June 15, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

by Diane Rufino, June 15, 2021

QUESTION: Do you believe our country is irreparably divided between two competing and non-overlapping ideologies? Do you believe that to try to negotiate and make concessions will only further erode the precarious existence that already threatens the integrity of our once-great republic?

Do you think we are heading for something serious, such as a revolution, secession, or even a state-sponsored Article V Convention to amend our government (whether for good or bad, but chances are that it will make concessions to government)?

Do you think we, as a country, are ready to engage in serious thoughts and discussions about the states’ “rightful remedy” of Nullification in order to check the over-reach and abuse of the federal government? Or do you think the States lack the backbone to push back? Do you think we, as a country, are ready to have a serious discussion about secession and the right of each State to do so (articulated in the Declaration of Independence) in order to shed itself of a government that has “become destructive” of its rightful and legitimate ends?

We all know that the second paragraph of the Declaration instructs: “… 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….”

The fact is that state districts are actually trying to do just that now – to secede from their existing states. They want to escape the liberal history and politics of their state by petitioning to join a conservative neighboring state.

Another attempt to “secede” in a sense is by mass migration of people from liberal states to conservative ones. That’s why California has so greatly lost a huge number of citizens (and lost seats in Congress) and the same with New York and Illinois and maybe New Jersey too.

If we can’t live together trustingly and with enough common values to hold us together, than I personally think it’s best to split up so both sides can live in their version of peace and prosperity (and of course, size of government and intrusion in their lives. If the States refuse to nullify abusive acts of the federal government and if we take secession off the table, then we are likely headed for revolution or another civil war. And then, very possible, we face losing the greatest gift our founding generation and Founding Fathers gave us (and the world), which was a near-perfect constitutional republic. But that’s just my opinion.

Your thoughts……

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

MEMORIAL DAY 2021

Posted on June 1, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

by Diane Rufino, June 1, 2021

Yesterday, we Americans remembered and honored all the soldiers who have offered the greatest sacrifice in service of our country – their last full measure. Those soldiers who have died, or been wounded and later died, in battle – and those who are willing to – deserve the honor and respect of all Americans, and not just on Memorial Day, but every single day. Every time we gaze upon the American flag, we should be reminded of the courage our brave men and women faced in situations that can only be described as pure hell and because of their sacrifice, and their willingness to fight to the end, we are able to enjoy their holiday in peace and security and able to exercise the God-given and natural rights our Founders secured for us in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

As Ronald Reagan so famously stated: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

The best way we can honor our fallen soldiers is by loving our country and standing up for what is right, moral, and just. We can also continue to honor our fallen soldiers by continuing to follow the law (rightfully and legally passed and enacted), to abide by the Constitution and to force (through our local and state governments, and the court system) the government to do the same, and to exercise our essential rights rigorously.

Day after day, we see our Constitution pushed farther and farther aside. But we have a First Amendment to protect us especially in political speech and we need to use it to alert our fellow citizens when any government, but especially the federal government, abuses and exceeds the power given to it under the Constitution. That is tyranny and should never be tolerated., Our soldiers didn’t give their lives to allow the government to run amuck over our freedoms and to regulate us like petulant children. When the First Amendment fails to work (such as when the government itself censors our speech and vilifies us, characterizing us as “domestic terrorists” or “rightwing lunatics” or “deplorables,” then we always have the bedrock amendment – the Second Amendment…. the right to keep and bear arms for our personal protection (and for our ability to protect our state) against all enemies, foreign and domestic (including our own government).

NEVER stop defending the Second Amendment. In the end, it may come down to that most essential of rights. If we have both the God-given and natural right to life, then by corollary, we have the God-given and natural right to defend it (by all means possible). We refer to it as the “Right of Self-Defense” or “Right of Self-Preservation.” In this dangerous era when part of the country has little or no respect for the Constitution or our founding principle based on Individual Rights and wants an all-powerful, all-encompassing government that should have the power to control its citizens and the other part holds dear our founding principles, believes our country stands for freedom, and wants a government limited as the Constitution directs. Our soldiers fight for both of these groups. Sadly, as they fight and die, the ones who seem to be benefitting are the ones corrupting our country.

Whenever I see an American flag, I am reminded not of our current politics or the scandals and bad decisions of our government, or its attempts to constrain us in our exercise of our liberties, but rather, what she stands for. The flag stands for freedom and our enduring commitment to it. Men and women died for her ideals. There is no greater love for fellow man than to lay down his or her life for them. The flag was a source of unity and pride and encouragement and increased moral on the battlefield. It has always been a rallying cry for freedom, for the desire to liberate oppressed people of the world, and the hope of spreading our ideals abroad. Petty politics and views need to be put aside when it comes to the symbolism of our great and beautiful American flag.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) tells us that over 1 million Americans have given their lives in service to their country, dating back to the Revolutionary War. Can you fathom the hell the young men faced during the Civil War, fighting sometimes face to face, hand to hand, and the challenges the American colonial patriots faced as a rag-tag group of militias against perhaps the finest fighting force in the world. Then there was the new age of warfare – fighter planes, tanks, battleships, machine guns, missiles, and yes, even the atomic bomb. This is what our young men faced in WWI and WWII. Who can forget the extreme patriotism that swelled up even our American teens when they learned that freedom was being attacked across the ocean and then on our own shores. They immediately, and without reservation (often with great enthusiasm and pride) went to sign up and enlist to serve. And who can even begin to imagine the horrors our young men faced in the backwards countries of Vietnam and Korea (jungle warfare) and the death-obsessed Islamic countries of the Middle East. In times of darkness, we, America, must be the light. Our soldiers carry that light so others can benefit.

When Donald Trump was our President, he focused on our heroes in his official Memorial Day statement, and it went over very well with many citizens. In one message, he proclaimed:

“On this Memorial Day, we remember the fallen heroes who took their last breaths in defense of our Nation, our families, our citizens, and our sacred freedoms. The depth of their devotion, the steel of their resolve, and the purity of their patriotism has no equal in human history. It is because of their gallantry that we can together, as one people, continue our pursuit of America’s glorious destiny….

We owe all that we are, and everything we ever hope to be, to these unrivaled heroes. Their memory and their legacy is immortal. Our loyalty to them and to their families is eternal and everlasting.

America’s warriors are the single greatest force for justice, peace, liberty, and security among all the nations ever to exist on earth. God bless our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Coast Guardsmen, Airmen, and Marines.”

I hope everyone had a most wonderful Memorial Day. And we appreciate those who took the time to remember the reason for the holiday before getting out in the beautiful weather to enjoy a burger and some beer.

Reference:

Ben Dutka, “Trump Sends “Unrivaled Heroes” Memorial Day Message – He Claims American Warriors Are The “Greatest Force For Justice, Liberty, And Peace,” Patriot Journal, May 31, 2021.  Referenced at:   https://thepatriotjournal.com/trump-heroes-message-force-peace/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=2020newsletter

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

Thank You to WILD BILL FOR AMERICA For Endorsing “The Rufino Plan” to Put Power in the States’ Hands to Curb Federal Taxing and Spending

Posted on May 10, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

Hey Everyone, I have some very exciting news to share.

The wise and wonderful, and loveable Wild Bill for America (aka, Bill Finlay) has put out a video introducing “The Rufino Plan” for resisting the tyranny and control of the federal government. He is pushing it in Florida and with his Constitutional Party. The title of the video is “The Money Hammer Solution.”

As Wild Bill starts off in his video: “What’s the difference between the Constitution Party and all the others? The Democrats and Republicans create problems and then they get re-elected by promising to fix those problems. But the never seem to get to that part. The Constitution Party brings common sense solutions that should have been implemented years ago. And today we’re going to look at one of the best….

By far the biggest weapon Washington DC has to use against us is the tax dollars they take from us. Look at a map of the United States. Washington DC is just a little speck. And that little speck confiscates horrendous amounts of money from all of us. Then they dole it back out to the States a little at a time – AS LONG AS THE STATES ARE DOING AS THEY ARE TOLD. That is the exact opposite of what our government is supposed to be.

Washington DC is supposed to be subservient to the States, but as long as Congress holds the ‘money hammer’ we will be financial slaves to the Washington DC cabal.

Diane Rufino has a brilliant plan to take that money hammer away from Congress and give it back to the States, where it belongs. Diane is a teacher, scientist, attorney, and excellent mother and wife. She has submitted what I call “THE RUFINO PLAN” to her home state of North Carolina. She is calling for North Carolina to set up a special escrow account…. “

Please watch Wild Bill’s video to see how he brilliantly describes my plan.

“The Rufino Plan” is another name for my “State Escrow Accounts” plan to allow each State to put a most effective check on the size and scope of the federal government – by putting an end to unconstitutional taxing and spending. It puts the power to “check and balance” the actions of DC back into the hands of each State. Wild Bill calls it “a brilliant plan to take the “money hammer” away from Congress and give it back to the States. And hence, the title of his video is “The Money Hammer Solution,” which I must say, is a much more palatable characterization of the problem and solution.

Link to Wild Bill’s video – https://youtu.be/piTs4va6nY4 OR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piTs4va6nY4&ab_channel=WildBillforAmerica

Here are the references to my Plan, as posted on this, my blogsite:

“The Rightful Remedy to Curb Federal Spending: State Escrow Accounts”  –  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2015/11/09/the-rightful-remedy-to-curb-federal-spending-state-escrow-accounts/ 

“State Escrow Accounts to Curb Federal Spending” —  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2021/03/23/a-proposed-state-tenth-amendment-resolution-establishing-a-state-escrow-account-to-curb-federal-spending/ 

 “A Proposed State Tenth Amendment Resolution Establishing a State Escrow Account to Curb Federal Spending”  –  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2021/03/23/a-proposed-state-tenth-amendment-resolution-establishing-a-state-escrow-account-to-curb-federal-spending/ 

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

A DECLARATION Opposing the Teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in North Carolina Public Schools

Posted on May 10, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

by Diane Rufino, May 10, 2021

I propose, and have written, the following DECLARATION – “A DECLARATION Opposing the Teaching of Critical Race Theory in North Carolina Public Schools.” It is based on my article “CRITICAL RACE THEORY: What It Is, Where It Came From, and Where It’s Going,” (April 29, 2021), based on additional reading and research I’ve done, and based on articles and interviews by expert Christopher Rufo. I, along with some trusted colleagues, thought the views held in my article would have greater force if they were framed in terms of a “declaration” rather than as a resolution. The DECLARATION, just like the Resolution, is written in terms of “Concerned Parents and Concerned Citizens,” but it can easily be modified for the North Carolina state General Assembly, for local governments, for boards of education, or even for use in other states.

DECLARATION TO OPPOSE THE TEACHING OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

INTRO –

Critical race theory supports the logic that all whites are born racists and oppressors by nature. They are to be viewed as a collective threat to non-white people and beyond redemption. This sentiment is already infecting US government institutions and the American workplace via racial sensitivity and diversity trainings, and now being adopted and implemented in public school systems all across the country.

It is important to have a foundational view of what Critical Race Theory is and why, in my view, it is so pernicious. Critical race theory (CRT) uses racism to combat largely imaginary racism. Its doctrine promotes systematic racism, white privilege and white fragility. These Marxist-inspired ideologies are designed to create hate and division.

Invented by Derrick Bell and other attorneys as a spin-off of Critical Legal Theory in American law schools in the 1980s, these theorists were disenchanted with the results of the Civil Rights Movement. Bell, Richard Delgado, and other CRT thinkers viewed classical liberal ideas such as meritocracy (people being rewarded based on their individual merits), equal opportunity, and colorblind justice (like that promoted by Dr. King) to all be factors that cause systemic, invisible, intangible racism.

What many people don’t understand is that CRT rejects most of the things that the 1960s Civil Rights Movement fought for, like treating people equally in institutions and under the law. Instead, CRT teaches that if power is to be properly redistributed from the “haves” to “have-nots” (which in their eyes include minority identity groups), the law may actually need to biased in favor of minority identity groups.

It is likely that the 1960s Civil Rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Bayard Rustin, Hosea Williams, and Gloria Richardson all would have opposed CRT vehemently, as it denies that people should be judged “by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.” CRT, conversely, teaches that skin color (or identity group) is the lens through which all things – especially justice – should be viewed.

WHEREAS, 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. In order to maintain a culture and system of white supremacy, other races, particularly the African-American race, must be discriminated against and suppressed. Critical Race Theory essentially characterizes our system as one of “oppressors” and the “oppressed.”  (Race Theorists and Critical Race theorists argue that as a result, all of these institutions mentioned are beyond reforming and they would need to be completely dismantled in order to liberate the oppressed people).

WHEREAS, as Christopher Rufo, a visiting fellow for Heritage’s domestic policy studies who has particular expertise on Critical Race Theory, puts it: “It sounds extreme and I think the best way to think about it is you take the old Marxist concept of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie or the oppressed and the oppressor. But instead of looking at it in economic terms as Marx did you change it and you graft the new identity politics and you think of it in racial terms. So, instead of the poor and the rich, it’s essentially the white and the people of color are the two dynamics. And this is the new oppressor and oppressed and all of the old Marxist, dialectic is really just reinterpreted through the lens of race. That’s really at the heart of critical race theory.”

WHEREAS, 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. Why is such a policy being implemented in our school systems, including to children younger than high school age?  It’s because children have brains that are not yet fully developed and who are especially vulnerable and susceptible to what is taught to them.

WHEREAS, some people – liberals, progressives, Marxists, leftists, etc – 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. Yet it is a vision of America that such people wish to perpetrate.

WHEREAS, 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 any state Governor. It is a policy that was initiated, embraced, and adopted by teachers themselves. It was adopted by teachers in the Wake County School system last year (2020) and named “Equity in Action Plan.”  For an expose on how it was able to make its way into our state’s public school system, refer to the very informative article, titled “Subversive Education,” written by Christopher Rufo on March 17 of this year (2021) for City Journal.  

WHEREAS, Teaching discrimination, as Critical Race Theory clearly encourages, is clearly forbidden by our Declaration of Independence, which states plainly “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……”

WHEREAS, as one parent put it: “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 in this country.”

WHEREAS, as the acclaimed economist, professor, and columnist Thomas Sowell explained: “Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”

WHEREAS, Brit Hume, an American journalist and political commentator, commented: “No country on earth has done more to overcome racial prejudice both in law and practice. Indeed, racism today is nearly universally rejected in America, which is why the left tries so hard to pin the label on its political opponents.”

WHEREAS, as Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) articulated (in his remarks following President Biden’s address to Congress, April 2021): “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….  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.”

WHEREAS, as NC Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson sees it: “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.”

WHEREAS, there are at least twenty-one “critical” reasons that Critical Race Theory is pointing the United States and our public schools in the wrong direction and they include:

(i)  It is demeaning to modern-day 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.

(ii)  It advocates that racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore is indoctrinating children and employees to look for it everywhere. It encourages students to look at everything through the lens of race.

(iii)  It substitutes one form of racism with another. In fact, it is Critical Race Theory and Race Theory in general that is the new racist element in society and not the actions of the white members of society.

(iv)  It teaches in contradiction to the Golden Rule, which states that “People should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration, love, and compassion.” The Golden Rule, and NOT Critical Race Theory, should be the policy on which we anchor and base our society. It is the Golden Rule, and NOT Critical Race Theory, that should be taught in our schools… that is, if we want to hope for a better, more tolerant, tomorrow.

(v)  It shames white students for their “obvious” white privilege and their inherent racism. They “obviously got the upper hand because of how our society and system favor after them while disfavoring African-Americans and other minority races. (Note that the Chinese and the Indian cultures, for example, excel at a rate even greater than whites). Equally, it re-enforces the notion in the minds of African-Americans and other minority races that they are “victims” in this country, discriminated against (“systemic racism”) so that whites can continue to benefit predominantly.

(vi)  The ideas embedded in Critical Race Theory, instead of moving America towards racial equality and a color-blind society, actually will achieve the opposite. They teach white children that they are inherently racist no matter what they do and no matter what they think. Black children are taught that their inability to achieve is not due to lack of effort, lack of self-discipline, or the product of a culture that they alone are responsible for, but rather the inherent racism of America.

(vii)  It 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.

(viii)  The ideas embraced by Critical Race Theory, if allowed to be taught in our public schools, will fan racial animosity and undo the progress that has been made since the desegregation era of the 1950’s and then the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. America will become divided just as it was in the past. (This is precisely what liberals, progressives, Marxists, and socialists want).

(ix)  It sends the message to students that a color-blind society is a legal and moral fiction, that it can never be achieved. (And it’s the fault, of course, of white people).

(x)  Progressive teachers have taken it upon themselves to use public resources teach policies not grounded in science or rationality or actual data. They are using public resources to push extremist views on our kids.

(xi)  Critical Race Theory (or whatever the name they choose to give it – such as the “Equity in Action” policy, “Race Theory”) transforms the primary goal of a teacher from basic education to social engineering mind control and political advocate. It gives teachers and administrators too much opportunity to shape a student’s views or an employee’s views on social and political issues rather than being one who strictly instructs in the core subjects or being an institution that provides employment. How does it become the school’s job to teach children to “view problems and issues through the lens of race?” And how does it become the government’s job to “view problems and issues through the lens of race?”  

(xii)  It has no place in our taxpayer-funded schools. All white people are not racists, and how dare our public schools teach that to our impressionable children as if it were the reality in America. 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.

(xiii)  Here’s the kicker….  Good-intentioned parents and other concerned citizens aren’t willing to talk to media outlets or post on social media because their perspective will surely be depicted as racist, even though their true goals are combating racism and ensuring equal treatment and continued academic excellence for ALL students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc, and for all persons in general, again regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

(xiv)  Critical Race Theory absolves the African-American race from looking within themselves for reasons why they have very low graduation rates, low performance rates in schools, have a poor record of having intact families, etc for reasons for claiming ‘discrimination’ and ‘oppression’ and instead, sends the message that others are responsible and that the system is intentionally rigged against them. The fact is that no race has a copyright on discrimination and oppression. Not all “whites” are from the same lot. The Irish were discriminated against, the Italians were discriminated against, the Jews were discriminated against and even prevented from coming to this country when they were being exterminated in Europe, the Chinese were horribly discriminated against, etc etc.  “Irish need not apply.”  “Italians need not apply.”  Signs like these were hung from business doors all over the country.

(xv)  It dishonors our nation’s history. The individual colonies were founded by freedom-seeking individuals, white individuals, predominantly from Great Britain and Europe, who embraced the values, the achievements, the history, and the writings and documents of the empire of Great Britain and also the Enlightenment Era philosophers. Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the state constitutions – the ones that liberals, progressives, Critical Race Theorists, progressive teachers, progressive government, and progressive business owners conveniently rely on for their freedom to implement such Race Theory programs and to indoctrinate our students on modern-day, systemic racism – were conceptualized and written by members of the white race. White culture has provided a great benefit to ALL persons in this country, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.

(xvi)  It is an insidious policy that has the government, or a particular political group or group of liberals and progressives, picking winners and losers and indoctrinating students as to the same. Education should be a “bottom-up” or more organic institution where parents, and NOT the teachers, dictate and provide boundaries and feedback on the curriculum.

(xvii)  It perpetuates ‘stereotypes,’ and specifically, it perpetuates the most insulting and egregious of stereotypes.  

(xviii)  It relies upon “interest convergence” (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their own interests) and therefore there is no incentive for whites to root out racism and “make the necessary changes” necessary for a true color-blind society.

(xix)  It is profoundly unfair to the white population. While the majority of taxpayers (supporting the public school systems) are white, they have the indignation of overwhelmingly supporting the public school system while at the same time being belittled and insulted (“accused of inherent racism”) by teachers and administrators who are trained to implement the Critical Race Theory policy.

(xx)  It is an affront to a FREE society that values the unencumbered and uncoerced conscience of every individual. Freedom of conscience is the one freedom that Thomas Jefferson valued most of all; he believed it to be the cornerstone of all other freedoms. He wrote: “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.” Jose Marti said: “The first duty of a man is to think for himself.”  

(xxi)  It is the start of a “slippery slope” for black activism and progressive activism. It threatens to infect every aspect of our society.

THEREFORE, We the Concerned Parents and Concerned Citizens of North Carolina:

DECLARE that the purpose of Critical Race Theory is to target our children and teens, those whose brains are not yet fully developed (and extremely susceptible to what is being taught to them), to separate them from their parents, and consequently, to have the authority to indoctrinate them in socially progressive views. The policy is being used to remake our society – from a society that was once based on race to a new society also based on race.

DECLARE  that it is the Golden Rule, which stands for the notion that “People should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration, love, and compassion,” that should be taught and emphasized in our schools, and NOT Critical Race Theory (or Race Theory in general).

DECLARE  that it is the Golden Rule that teaches tolerance, is the policy that on which we need to base our society, and is our greatest hope for a better, more tolerant, more united future.

DECLARE  that Critical Race Theory, and Race Theory in general, promotes race stereotyping and racial scapegoating in contradiction to the words of the Declaration of Independence (that ALL men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights…”), in contradiction to the Thirteenth Amendment (abolished slavery), in contradiction to judicial rulings that have ended segregation and mandated equal treatment, and in contradiction to the many acts of the federal government, state governments, and local governments to enact all recognizable and protectable civil rights to minority citizens.

DECLARE  that Critical Race Theory, and Race Theory in general, be condemned in the strongest sense of the word for using the idea of ‘diversity’ to indoctrinate and propagate such stereotyping and scapegoating.

DECLARE  that it is deplorable and unacceptable for teachers and school systems to indoctrinate children to look at everything through the lens of race.

DECLARE   that the classroom, instructors, and the school building itself stands in the place of parental education and upbringing, and because they do so, they owe allegiance and deference to the local community of parents.

DECLARE   that it is NOT the function of the school system to INDOCTRINATE our students as to social and political matters but rather only to EDUCATE them in the critical areas of math, science, reading, writing, history, English, grammar, and the like.

DECLARE   that Critical Race Theory, and Race Theory in general, embraces a philosophy that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified in invidious characterizations and should be completely repudiated.

DECLARE  that racial, ethnic, cultural distinctions among one another are gifts from God and should be embraced and appreciated, and not used as a basis to divide our country or twisted into reasons for individuals to hate and mistrust one another.

DECLARE  to reject Critical Race Theory in all that it stands for and all that it hopes to achieve.

DECLARE  that Critical Race Theory is a policy that has no place whatsoever in our school system. Social and political views are areas that belong to the parents and to the family, should be reserved for family conversations and not classroom indoctrination (by teachers who think against the conservative grain and who have a social and political agenda). It is abhorrent to allow schools to circumvent the role of parents and the family, and yes, even the church in many cases.

DECLARE  that our state General Assembly, our local governments, and our school boards take the necessary steps to immediately reject Critical Race Theory, or Race Theory in general, and refuse to implement it.

DECLARE  that should Critical Race Theory, or Race Theory in general, continue to be advanced in our state’s public schools, every parent has the right to immediately take his or her child out of the school without any repercussion and instead, have home school materials be supplied at no cost (since their taxpayer funds already go towards education).

DECLARE  that everyone who believes it’s time to stop the Indoctrination and focus on Education should get involved – go to Board of Education meetings, write the DPI, join activist groups, file lawsuits, become a blogger.

References:

Diane Rufino, “CRITICAL RACE THEORY: What It Is, Where It Came From, and Where It’s Going,” Diane’s blog (www.forloveofgodandcountry.com), April 29, 2021.  Referenced at:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2021/04/29/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-where-it-came-from-and-where-its-going/

Christopher F. Rufo, “Subversive Education,” City Journal, March 17, 2021.  Referenced at:  https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-in-wake-county-nc-schools   [City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank.]

Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson Addresses House Committee on the Judiciary, BreitbartNews (YouTube) –  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvKswJjves&ab_channel=BreitbartNews    

Michelle Cordero, “How Critical Race Theory is Dividing America,” The Heritage Foundation, October 26th, 2020.  Referenced at:  https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/how-critical-race-theory-dividing-america   [Includes a podcast interview and a full transcript of that interview}

Remarks by NC Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson to the NC House Committee of the Judiciary, April 2021.     YouTube link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvKswJjves&ab_channel=BreitbartNews

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

A RESOLUTION to Oppose the Teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in North Carolina Public Schools

Posted on May 9, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

by Diane Rufino, May 7, 2021

I propose, and have written, the following Resolution – “A RESOLUTION to Oppose the Teaching of Critical Race Theory in North Carolina Public Schools.” It is based on my article “CRITICAL RACE THEORY: What It Is, Where It Came From, and Where It’s Going,” (April 29, 2021), based on additional reading and research I’ve done, and based on articles and interviews by expert Christopher Rufo. The Resolution, is written in terms of “Concerned Parents and Concerned Citizens,” but it can easily be modified for the North Carolina state General Assembly, for local governments, for boards of education, or even for use in other states.

RESOLUTION (or PETITION) TO OPPOSE THE TEACHING OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

INTRO –

Critical race theory supports the logic that all whites are born racists and oppressors by nature. They are to be viewed as a collective threat to non-white people and beyond redemption. This sentiment is already infecting US government institutions and the American workplace via racial sensitivity and diversity trainings, and now being adopted and implemented in public school systems all across the country.

It is important to have a foundational view of what Critical Race Theory is and why, in my view, it is so pernicious. Critical race theory (CRT) uses racism to combat largely imaginary racism. Its doctrine promotes systematic racism, white privilege and white fragility. These Marxist-inspired ideologies are designed to create hate and division.

Invented by Derrick Bell and other attorneys as a spin-off of Critical Legal Theory in American law schools in the 1980s, these theorists were disenchanted with the results of the Civil Rights Movement. Bell, Richard Delgado, and other CRT thinkers viewed classical liberal ideas such as meritocracy (people being rewarded based on their individual merits), equal opportunity, and colorblind justice (like that promoted by Dr. King) to all be factors that cause systemic, invisible, intangible racism.

What many people don’t understand is that CRT rejects most of the things that the 1960s Civil Rights Movement fought for, like treating people equally in institutions and under the law. Instead, CRT teaches that if power is to be properly redistributed from the “haves” to “have-nots” (which in their eyes include minority identity groups), the law may actually need to biased in favor of minority identity groups.

It is likely that the 1960s Civil Rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Bayard Rustin, Hosea Williams, and Gloria Richardson all would have opposed CRT vehemently, as it denies that people should be judged “by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.” CRT, conversely, teaches that skin color (or identity group) is the lens through which all things – especially justice – should be viewed.

WHEREAS, 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. In order to maintain a culture and system of white supremacy, other races, particularly the African-American race, must be discriminated against and suppressed. Critical Race Theory essentially characterizes our system as one of “oppressors” and the “oppressed.”  (Race Theorists and Critical Race theorists argue that as a result, all of these institutions mentioned are beyond reforming and they would need to be completely dismantled in order to liberate the oppressed people).

WHEREAS, as Christopher Rufo, a visiting fellow for Heritage’s domestic policy studies who has particular expertise on Critical Race Theory, puts it: “It sounds extreme and I think the best way to think about it is you take the old Marxist concept of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie or the oppressed and the oppressor. But instead of looking at it in economic terms as Marx did you change it and you graft the new identity politics and you think of it in racial terms. So, instead of the poor and the rich, it’s essentially the white and the people of color are the two dynamics. And this is the new oppressor and oppressed and all of the old Marxist, dialectic is really just reinterpreted through the lens of race. That’s really at the heart of critical race theory.”

WHEREAS, 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. Why is such a policy being implemented in our school systems, including to children younger than high school age?  It’s because children have brains that are not yet fully developed and who are especially vulnerable and susceptible to what is taught to them.

WHEREAS, some people – liberals, progressives, Marxists, leftists, etc – 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. Yet it is a vision of America that such people wish to perpetrate.

WHEREAS, 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 any state Governor. It is a policy that was initiated, embraced, and adopted by teachers themselves. It was adopted by teachers in the Wake County School system last year (2020) and named “Equity in Action Plan.”  For an expose on how it was able to make its way into our state’s public school system, refer to the very informative article, titled “Subversive Education,” written by Christopher Rufo on March 17 of this year (2021) for City Journal.  

WHEREAS, Teaching discrimination, as Critical Race Theory clearly encourages, is clearly forbidden by our Declaration of Independence, which states plainly “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……”

WHEREAS, as one parent put it: “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 in this country.”

WHEREAS, as the acclaimed economist, professor, and columnist Thomas Sowell explained: “Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”

WHEREAS, Brit Hume, an American journalist and political commentator, commented: “No country on earth has done more to overcome racial prejudice both in law and practice. Indeed, racism today is nearly universally rejected in America, which is why the left tries so hard to pin the label on its political opponents.”

WHEREAS, as Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) articulated (in his remarks following President Biden’s address to Congress, April 2021): “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….  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.”

WHEREAS, as NC Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson sees it: “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.”

WHEREAS, there are at least twenty-one “critical” reasons that Critical Race Theory is pointing the United States and our public schools in the wrong direction and they include:

(i)  It is demeaning to modern-day 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.

(ii)  It advocates that racism is present in every aspect of life, every relationship, and every interaction and therefore is indoctrinating children and employees to look for it everywhere. It encourages students to look at everything through the lens of race.

(iii)  It substitutes one form of racism with another. In fact, it is Critical Race Theory and Race Theory in general that is the new racist element in society and not the actions of the white members of society.

(iv)  It teaches in contradiction to the Golden Rule, which states that “People should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration, love, and compassion.” The Golden Rule, and NOT Critical Race Theory, should be the policy on which we anchor and base our society. It is the Golden Rule, and NOT Critical Race Theory, that should be taught in our schools… that is, if we want to hope for a better, more tolerant, tomorrow.

(v)  It shames white students for their “obvious” white privilege and their inherent racism. They “obviously got the upper hand because of how our society and system favor after them while disfavoring African-Americans and other minority races. (Note that the Chinese and the Indian cultures, for example, excel at a rate even greater than whites). Equally, it re-enforces the notion in the minds of African-Americans and other minority races that they are “victims” in this country, discriminated against (“systemic racism”) so that whites can continue to benefit predominantly.

(vi)  The ideas embedded in Critical Race Theory, instead of moving America towards racial equality and a color-blind society, actually will achieve the opposite. They teach white children that they are inherently racist no matter what they do and no matter what they think. Black children are taught that their inability to achieve is not due to lack of effort, lack of self-discipline, or the product of a culture that they alone are responsible for, but rather the inherent racism of America.

(vii)  It 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.

(viii)  The ideas embraced by Critical Race Theory, if allowed to be taught in our public schools, will fan racial animosity and undo the progress that has been made since the desegregation era of the 1950’s and then the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. America will become divided just as it was in the past. (This is precisely what liberals, progressives, Marxists, and socialists want).

(ix)  It sends the message to students that a color-blind society is a legal and moral fiction, that it can never be achieved. (And it’s the fault, of course, of white people).

(x)  Progressive teachers have taken it upon themselves to use public resources teach policies not grounded in science or rationality or actual data. They are using public resources to push extremist views on our kids.

(xi)  Critical Race Theory (or whatever the name they choose to give it – such as the “Equity in Action” policy, “Race Theory”) transforms the primary goal of a teacher from basic education to social engineering mind control and political advocate. It gives teachers and administrators too much opportunity to shape a student’s views or an employee’s views on social and political issues rather than being one who strictly instructs in the core subjects or being an institution that provides employment. How does it become the school’s job to teach children to “view problems and issues through the lens of race?” And how does it become the government’s job to “view problems and issues through the lens of race?”  

(xii)  It has no place in our taxpayer-funded schools. All white people are not racists, and how dare our public schools teach that to our impressionable children as if it were the reality in America. 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.

(xiii)  Here’s the kicker….  Good-intentioned parents and other concerned citizens aren’t willing to talk to media outlets or post on social media because their perspective will surely be depicted as racist, even though their true goals are combating racism and ensuring equal treatment and continued academic excellence for ALL students, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc, and for all persons in general, again regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

(xiv)  Critical Race Theory absolves the African-American race from looking within themselves for reasons why they have very low graduation rates, low performance rates in schools, have a poor record of having intact families, etc for reasons for claiming ‘discrimination’ and ‘oppression’ and instead, sends the message that others are responsible and that the system is intentionally rigged against them. The fact is that no race has a copyright on discrimination and oppression. Not all “whites” are from the same lot. The Irish were discriminated against, the Italians were discriminated against, the Jews were discriminated against and even prevented from coming to this country when they were being exterminated in Europe, the Chinese were horribly discriminated against, etc etc.  “Irish need not apply.”  “Italians need not apply.”  Signs like these were hung from business doors all over the country.

(xv)  It dishonors our nation’s history. The individual colonies were founded by freedom-seeking individuals, white individuals, predominantly from Great Britain and Europe, who embraced the values, the achievements, the history, and the writings and documents of the empire of Great Britain and also the Enlightenment Era philosophers. Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the state constitutions – the ones that liberals, progressives, Critical Race Theorists, progressive teachers, progressive government, and progressive business owners conveniently rely on for their freedom to implement such Race Theory programs and to indoctrinate our students on modern-day, systemic racism – were conceptualized and written by members of the white race. White culture has provided a great benefit to ALL persons in this country, regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc.

(xvi) It is an insidious policy that has the government, or a particular political group or group of liberals and progressives, picking winners and losers and indoctrinating students as to the same. Education should be a “bottom-up” or more organic institution where parents, and NOT the teachers, dictate and provide boundaries and feedback on the curriculum.

(xvii)  It perpetuates ‘stereotypes,’ and specifically, it perpetuates the most insulting and egregious of stereotypes.  

(xviii)  It relies upon “interest convergence” (white people only give black people opportunities and freedoms when it is also in their in own interests) and therefore there is no incentive for whites to root out racism and “make the necessary changes” necessary for a true color-blind society.

(xix)  It is profoundly unfair to the white population. While the majority of taxpayers (supporting the public school systems) are white, they have the indignation of overwhelmingly supporting the public school system while at the same time being belittled and insulted (“accused of inherent racism”) by teachers and administrators who are trained to implement the Critical Race Theory policy.

(xx)  It is an affront to a FREE society that values the unencumbered and uncoerced conscience of every individual. Freedom of conscience is the one freedom that Thomas Jefferson valued most of all; he believed it to be the cornerstone of all other freedoms. He wrote: “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.” Jose Marti said: “The first duty of a man is to think for himself.”  

(xxi)  It is the start of a “slippery slope” for black activism and progressive activism. It threatens to infect every aspect of our society.

THEREFORE, We the Concerned Parents and Concerned Citizens of North Carolina:

DECLARE that the purpose of Critical Race Theory is to target our children and teens, those whose brains are not yet fully developed (and extremely susceptible to what is being taught to them), to separate them from their parents, and consequently, to have the authority to indoctrinate them in socially progressive views. The policy is being used to remake our society – from a society that was once based on race to a new society also based on race.

RESOLVE that it is the Golden Rule, which stands for the notion that “People should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration, love, and compassion,” that should be taught and emphasized in our schools, and NOT Critical Race Theory (or Race Theory in general).

RESOLVE that it is the Golden Rule that teaches tolerance, is the policy that on which we need to base our society, and is our greatest hope for a better, more tolerant, more united future.

RESOLVE the Critical Race Theory, and Race Theory in general, promotes race stereotyping and racial scapegoating in contradiction to the words of the Declaration of Independence (that ALL men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights…”), in contradiction to the Thirteenth Amendment (abolished slavery), in contradiction to judicial rulings that have ended segregation and mandated equal treatment, and in contradiction to the many acts of the federal government, state governments, and local governments to enact all recognizable and protectable civil rights to minority citizens.

RESOLVE that Critical Race Theory, and Race Theory in general, be condemned in the strongest sense of the word for using the idea of ‘diversity’ to indoctrinate and propagate such stereotyping and scapegoating.

RESOLVE that it is deplorable and unacceptable for teachers and school systems to indoctrinate children to look at everything through the lens of race.

RESOLVE that the classroom, instructors, and the school building itself stands in the place of parental education and upbringing, and because they do so, they owe allegiance and deference to the local community of parents.

RESOLVE that it is NOT the function of the school system to INDOCTRINATE our students as to social and political matters but rather only to EDUCATE them in the critical areas of math, science, reading, writing, history, English, grammar, and the like.

RESOLVE that Critical Race Theory, and Race Theory in general, embraces a philosophy that fundamentally defines individuals using categories identified in invidious characterizations and should be completely repudiated.

RESOLVE that racial, ethnic, cultural distinctions among one another are gifts from God and should be embraced and appreciated, and not used as a basis to divide our country or twisted into reasons for individuals to hate and mistrust one another.

RESOLVE to reject Critical Race Theory in all that it stands for and all that it hopes to achieve.

RESOLVE that Critical Race Theory is a policy that has no place whatsoever in our school system. Social and political views are areas that belong to the parents and to the family, should be reserved for family conversations and not classroom indoctrination (by teachers who think against the conservative grain and who have a social and political agenda). It is abhorrent to allow schools to circumvent the role of parents and the family, and yes, even the church in many cases.

RESOLVE that our state General Assembly, our local governments, and our school boards take the necessary steps to immediately reject Critical Race Theory, or Race Theory in general, and refuse to implement it.

RESOLVE that should Critical Race Theory, or Race Theory in general, continue to be advanced in our state’s public schools, every parent has the right to immediately take his or her child out of the school without any repercussion and instead, have home school materials be supplied at no cost (since their taxpayer funds already go towards education).

RESOLVE that everyone who believes it’s time to stop the Indoctrination and focus on Education should get involved – go to Board of Education meetings, write the DPI, join activist groups, file lawsuits, become a blogger.

References:

Diane Rufino, “CRITICAL RACE THEORY: What It Is, Where It Came From, and Where It’s Going,” Diane’s blog (www.forloveofgodandcountry.com), April 29, 2021.  Referenced at:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2021/04/29/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-where-it-came-from-and-where-its-going/

Christopher F. Rufo, “Subversive Education,” City Journal, March 17, 2021.  Referenced at:  https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-in-wake-county-nc-schools   [City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank.]

Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson Addresses House Committee on the Judiciary, BreitbartNews (YouTube) –  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvKswJjves&ab_channel=BreitbartNews    

Michelle Cordero, “How Critical Race Theory is Dividing America,” The Heritage Foundation, October 26th, 2020.  Referenced at:  https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/how-critical-race-theory-dividing-america   [Includes a podcast interview and a full transcript of that interview}

Remarks by NC Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson to the NC House Committee of the Judiciary, April 2021.     YouTube link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvKswJjves&ab_channel=BreitbartNews

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

CRITICAL RACE THEORY: What It Is, Where It Came From, and Where It’s Going

Posted on April 30, 2021 by forloveofgodandcountry

(Photo Credit: Fordham University School of Law, The Center on Race, Law, & Justice)

by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2021

A.  WHAT IS “CRITICAL RACE THEORY” IN GENERAL?

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.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY is a policy, or in this particular case, a 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 African-Americans 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.” 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.

B.  WHAT IS “CRITICAL RACE THEORY” AS IT RELATES TO NORTH CAROLINA?

CRITICAL RACE THEORY is a policy, or in this particular case, a 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.

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, April 28, 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.”

C.  WHEN DID CRITICAL RACE THEORY COME INTO EXISTENCE? 

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.

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

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

D.  WHAT ARE SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY IN SCHOOLS??

There are many implications – all negative – of implementing the policy in the school system and in our classrooms, but I’ll mention just three here:

1).  It implies that behaviors such as mispronouncing a student’s name, making both too much or too little eye contact, or not equally distributing how a teach walks around the room or calls on students is racist.

2).  It accuses teachers and administrators who choose to treat students, parents, and colleagues equally regardless of their skin color or ethnicity of “CULTURAL BLINDNESS.”  As several training sessions teach, regarding “whiteness”: “It must be nice to be able to go through life every day without having to think about race.” 

3).  Training sessions also instruct teachers and administrators to focus on “WHITE IDENTITY.”  It asks questions such as: “What does it mean for you to be white?”  And “How has being white helped you?” The sessions encourage teachers and administrators to adopt the mindset in their teaching that BEING WHITE IS ACTUALLY A BAD THING.

E.  THE PROBLEMS WITH CRITICAL RACE THEORY:  

Again, there are many problems with Critical Race Theory – with its very premise and with its implementation in our North Carolina public schools, and in American public schools in general. I will address only five of such problems:

1).  Progressive teachers have taken it upon themselves to USE PUBLIC RESOURCES to teach policies NOT grounded in science or rationality or actual data. They are USING PUBLIC RESOURCES to push extremist views on our kids.

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. Everyone who believes it’s time to stop the Indoctrination and focus on Education should get involved – go to Board of Education meetings, write the DPI, join activist groups, file lawsuits, become a blogger.

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.  How does it become the school’s job to 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 how dare our public schools teach that to our impressionable children. 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.

And here’s the kicker —

5).  Good-intentioned parents and other concerned citizens aren’t willing to talk to media outlets or post on social media because their perspective will be surely be depicted as racist, even though their true goals are combating racism and ensuring equal treatment and continued academic excellence for ALL students – regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc etc.

BUT WE MUST BECOME VOCAL. We must be willing to talk to media outlets and express our views on social media. We must be willing to be seen in Raleigh, at the state General Assembly building, to oppose this policy. The First Amendment is our friend and not our enemy. Unlike those on the left, we must embrace our right to speak, to express, and to assemble to promote our ideas. The left uses racism as a means to mock and censor our ideas. We must fight for our children. We must force the schools to erect a wall between a solid education in core classes and indoctrination on socially progressive issues. We will tolerate the former, but will not tolerate the latter. That is the role of the parents and of family, and certainly involves the child’s religious values. Sure, government wants to increasingly control its citizens. We see that trend. And one of the most critical and effective ways to begin controlling the population is to control the education system.  We can’t let government hijack the public schools. The outcome is nothing less than the survival of our national identity. No nation can survive a generation of citizens who hate their country…  who are actually taught to hate their country.

Freedom is never completely free. It can’t be taken for granted.  It must be guarded and must be defended against an ever-ambitious government, whether it be local, state, and federal.

The future of our school system lies with the good intentions of good people and their willingness to get involved.  Always remember this phrase: “A government of the People, by the People, for the People.”  If we don’t get involved, government will be transformed into “A government for the government.”

There is going to be a meeting next week of activists and conservative group leaders to learn more about Critical Race Policy and we’re hoping that something concrete and actionable will come out of it.

Stay tuned………

ADDENDUM:  BACKGROUND on RACE THEORY: 

I.  SOME HISTORY BEHIND RACE THEORY. 

Why is it that we must turn our attention to what is being legislated, taught, and promoted in our public schools?  Well, it goes back to the issue of political power, thought control, and what to do with “useless idiots.”

After the “Civil War” (“War to Prevent Southern Independence,” that is) and the northern victory over the southern states, the Southern Democrat Party, embracing the contemporary notion that African-Americans were uncivilized (see the Dred Scott case, 1857) and uneducated, together with the fact that they associated with the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln (the party of abolition, of freedom), used various approaches to prevent them from voting, to intimidate them, and to silence them, including violence. They created a two-tier system of “whites” and “blacks.” That was the beginning of race theory. That two-tier system continued during the Jim Crow era, which lasted until the Supreme Court struck down segregation in education with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling (1954).


Then came the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, and finally, African-Americans were recognized and legally protected as equal human beings, with the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965).

In the 1970’s, the question was asked “What to do with useless idiots?”  Saul Alinsky, the rabid and famous progressive and Marxist, and author of RULES FOR RADICALS, had the answer —  control them, seize their minds, control what they think, and organize them for political power (for the Democratic Party, that is).  This way, ‘useless idiots’ can be transformed into ‘useful idiots.’ And one of the most critical and effective ways to begin controlling the population, he wrote, is to control the education system. As the government knows all too well (and especially the Democratic element), the aim of its indoctrination is to appeal to people’s emotions rather than their brains. And for school-age children and teens, with their level of brain development, emotions are easier to comprehend than facts, which have to be studied and internalized.

This was the same approach taken by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s right-hand man (head of Nazi propaganda, beginning in 1933). The Nazi Party looked to the Marxist ideology of the Southern Democratic Party, as well as the eugenics policies of Margaret Sanger (also a Democratic policy) for their political platform of fear and oppression, as well as racial purity. That should tell you something right there. Goebbels explained: “There are two ways to make a revolution….  You can blast your enemy with machine guns until he acknowledges the superiority of those holding the machine guns.  That is one way. Or you can transform the nation through a revolution of the spirit.” 

Policies such as Critical Race Theory, diversity (but not of thought), white privilege, white supremacy, gender identity, gender fluidity, the growing LGBT movement, genderless marriages, abortion, etc etc are not grounded in science, facts, or rational thought, but rather they are a means to an end……to effect mind control, to teach children of the evils of this country, and to ultimately obtain and secure political power.

II.  LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MARK ROBINSON ADDRESSES THE NC GENERAL ASSEMBLY ABOUT RACE.  In speaking to the House Committee of the Judiciary about the need for Voter ID to ensure election integrity and about the Democrats’ assertion that such a law is discriminatory to African-Americans and an attempt to suppress their vote, our Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson said that “it is not only insane but Insulting to suggest black Americans are incapable of obtaining a FREE photo ID.”  I would argue that it is insulting and insane to think that our country must promulgate a false and misleading position that racism is inherent in white people and therefore our society is built on structural racism to continually keep African-Americans from succeeding.  I don’t believe in victimhood.

Here are the remarks Lieutenant Governor Robinson delivered:

“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.” 

YouTube link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvKswJjves&ab_channel=BreitbartNews    

References:

Christopher F. Rufo, “Subversive Education,” City Journal, March 17, 2021.  Referenced at:  https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-in-wake-county-nc-schools   [City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank.]

Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson Addresses House Committee on the Judiciary, BreitbartNews (YouTube) –  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvKswJjves&ab_channel=BreitbartNews    

Michelle Cordero, “How Critical Race Theory is Dividing America,” The Heritage Foundation, October 26th, 2020.  Referenced at:  https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/how-critical-race-theory-dividing-america   [Includes a podcast interview and a full transcript of that interview}

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments