Category Archives: rights

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“Boys will be boys and girls will be men/It’s a mixed up hung up shook up world…” – Ray Davies’ lyrics to The Kinks ‘Lola’

“They can’t do that. It’s the one thing they can’t do. They can make you say anything – anything – but they can’t make you believe it. They can’t get inside you.” – Julia, to Winston Smith in George Orwell’s ‘1984’

“Liberty means refusing to allow some men to use the state to compel other men to serve their interests or opinion.” – Auberon Herbert

This week’s winning essay,Bookworm Room’s Sex and State Power — What’s Behind Obama’s Transgender Push is pretty much exactly what it sounds like – Bookworm’s exploration of exactly what’s behind President Obama’s threatening new diktat to America’s schools and other public facilities to normalize the use of women’s bathrooms and locker rooms by transgender males whom claim they feel ‘female’ – or else. Here’s a slice:

The Obama administration has announced that from this day forward, all public schools in America must let children choose their bathroom and locker room based upon a child’s feelings about his or her gender on any given day. This means that, if a male sexual predator (or simply a sexually curious boy) feels that today is a good day to be a girl and watch the girls’ volleyball team strip off in the bathroom, that is his right and the school is obligated to comply:

The guidance from leaders at the departments of Education and Justice says public schools are obligated to treat transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity, even if their education records or identity documents indicate a different sex.

“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement accompanying the directive, which is being sent to school districts Friday.

Because Congress has already allotted funds to the Department of Education, the DOE wields the power of the purse over this issue, and there’s nothing Congress can do to stop it.

If asked why they are forcing this policy onto American public schools, administration figures, from the president on down, would reply that they’re doing it “for the good of the children.” It’s all about self-actualization, and self-realization, and personal empowerment, right?

Wrong! This comes from the Left, so there’s good reason to believe that it’s not “for the children” at all. Indeed, there’s extremely good reason to believe that the transgender movement is very bad for those who identify as transgender, starting with the children and working up to the disproportionate number of transgender adults who commit suicide. David French has a good breakdown of the heartbreaking numbers behind the suddenly trendy tranny movement:

The evidence of transgender despair is overwhelming. A Swedish study found that trans people were 19 times more likely to die from suicide. An American study found that a horrifying 41 percent of transgender and “gender non-conforming” people had attempted suicide, compared with a national rate of 1.6 percent. In Canada, a study found that each year one in nine transgender people try to commit suicide, compared with the national rate of one out of 167.

So it’s not “for the children.” Lie Number One is exposed.

Lie Number Two is the contention that the transgender movement is the same as the gay rights movement. In fact, the transgender movement also weirdly homophobic, even though the LGBT movement has embraced it . The weirdly homophobic aspect comes from the fact that the transgender movement puts the lie to what gay rights activists have been telling us for a good decade or more, which is that when it comes to gay, “Baby, I was born this way.” Again, David French neatly defines the conundrum:

For the last decade, the American public has been told that sexual orientation is a fixed, immutable characteristic — like skin color. Now we’re told that “gender identity” is much the same. Psychology is fixed. Biology has to adjust.

But observe the lamentation in the video: A transgender boy wants other boys to change, to reject the “born this way” of their own sexuality for the open-mindedness of “getting physical” with a girl with a penis. Claire is desperate for their psychology to change, for their minds to open, and for their sexual identity to change in response to Claire’s allegedly unchangeable desires.

Writing in the Gospel Coalition, Trevin Wax asks: “When a person feels a disjunction between one’s sex at birth and one’s gender identity, why is the only course of action to bring the body into closer conformity with the person’s psychological state, rather than vice versa?” That’s the course of action for the transitioning person. The course of action for their loved ones is substantially different. In essence, the Caitlyn Jenners are saying to their spouses or paramours, “I’m now a woman, and that makes you a lesbian.”

Wax notes that the declaration of this new reality — with the expectation that spouses comply and conform — “destabilizes some of the foundational elements of LGBT theory on homosexuality.” Well, yes. But the true “foundational element” of LGBT theory isn’t so much “born this way” as it is “I do what I want.”

Even on the Left, saner minds are figuring out what I pointed out some time ago, which is that we laugh at and despair over all forms of body mutilation except for the gender type, which is wrongly celebrated. Daniel Harris, a hard Left gay man who hates Republicans, wrote a much-talked-about article for The Antioch Review stating the obvious, which I’ll summarize here in my own words: Body mutilation is always a sign of some sort of mental disability and that the LGBT world and its fellow travelers cannot say “All body mutilation is a tragic joke, except for gender mutilation, which is a wondrous thing.”

Or, to quote from Harris himself:

. . . TGs have ambushed the debate and entangled us in a snare of such trivialities as the proper pronouns with which to address them, protocol as Byzantine and patronizing as the etiquette for addressing royalty.They insult us with the pejorative term “cisgender,” which they use to describe those of us who accept, however unenthusiastically, our birth gender, as opposed to the enlightened few who question their sex. Moreover, they shame us into silence by ridiculing the blunders we make while trying to come to grips with their unique dilemmas, decrying our curiosity about their bodies as prurience and our unwillingness, or even inability, to enter into their own (often unsuccessful) illusion as narrow‑mindedness.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Victor Davis Hanson with The Pajama Boy White House submitted by Stately McDaniel Manor.

It’s Dr. Hanson’s interesting look at what he sees as a real commonality in a number of the young, 30-something men who appear to run the White House…and their similarities with the star of certain ad put out by the White House to sell ObamaCare.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Fausta was unable to vote this week but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

This article is from:  

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results

Article written by: Tom White

Sandy AGREES (Reluctantly) With the Governor – Let’s Work It to Our Advantage

To say I was surprised when I read the Governor’s email message (I am on the Governor’s email list not because he knows me but I signed up to get the messages.  I get a lot of propaganda but some useful information and this is one example.) about the mass restoration of civil rights (except firearm rights) to 206,000 felons who have completed their sentences and any probation/parole and paid fines and costs is an understatement.

In fact, my first thought was:  Can McAuliffe do that?  So I looked at the state constitution (after reading some of the early criticism of the executive order from Republicans) to see what it says.  Let’s ask the question:  WWSD:  What Would Scalia Do?  The future patron saint of judges would look to the text of the constitution first.

Here is Article V, Section 12 of the Virginia Constitution:

Article V. Executive

Section 12. Executive clemency

The Governor shall have power to remit fines and penalties under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law; to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction except when the prosecution has been carried on by the House of Delegates; to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offenses committed prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Constitution; and to commute capital punishment.

He shall communicate to the General Assembly, at each regular session, particulars of every case of fine or penalty remitted, of reprieve or pardon granted, and of punishment commuted, with his reasons for remitting, granting, or commuting the same.

I do not see any requirement of a request first nor does it prohibit the use of executive clemency for a class of cases.

I actually called for a class of gay felons to receive a pardon because it was inherently unfair that soliciting straight sex is a misdemeanor (because consensual sex between adults is a misdemeanor and soliciting for a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor) but soliciting gay sex is a felony because of the old sodomy law was a felony and soliciting for a felony is – you guessed it – a felony!  (If I find the link I’ll link to it but it might have been at the now defunct blog Conflicted Libertarian!)  There is no question in my mind a governor could pardon a entire class of convicted persons for whatever reason he or she wants to (except maybe a bribe perhaps) as long as he notifies the next session of the General Assembly.

Could Governor McAuliffe clear death row if he chose?  Well, yes he can. I could find no statute saying the governor cannot do so.  From Article II, Section 1, paragraph 1 (concerning the right to vote):

No person who has been convicted of a felony shall be qualified to vote unless his civil rights have been restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority.

It does not say how the governor can act.  And there is no statute limiting the executive clemency power (and such a law would stand on dubious ground as a violation of the separation of powers or the exclusive power of the executive to issue clemency) to only those cases where a request is made.

Not this statute (Code Section 53.1-231) either:

§ 53.1-231. Investigation of cases for executive clemency by Parole Board.

The Virginia Parole Board shall, at the request of the Governor, investigate and report to the Governor on cases in which executive clemency is sought. In any other case in which it believes action on the part of the Governor is proper or in the best interest of the Commonwealth, the Board may investigate and report to the Governor with its recommendations.

The Parole Board is not required to act before the Governor can issue executive clemency neither does this statute require a request.  Nor did I find limits in Title 53 of the Virginia Code on the Governor’s power.

Now I am also on Senator Obenshain’s email list (I might be on another list after this blog post but that is another story) and the senator cites a letter that the counsel for Governor Kaine with a constitutional objection.  Here is the letter in its entirety.

But the letter does not say what it is cited to say (from the Obenshain statement):

“It is clear that the Governor has overstepped his statutory and constitutional authority by signing this executive action, which automatically restores civil rights to over 200,000 convicted felons.  Democrat and Republican Governors dating back more than 30 years have researched this issue and all have concluded that they do not have the sweeping executive authority the Governor has sought to exercise today. Even Governor Kaine reached this conclusion, which his counsel explained in a detailed letter sent to the ACLU on January 15, 2010. As Governor Kaine’s counsel explained, absent an amendment to the Virginia Constitution, a Governor cannot do what this Governor did today.  This is the kind of unconstitutional executive overreach that we have seen all too often in Washington. We deserve better from a Governor of Virginia.

“While I do support a streamlined process to restore civil rights, the Governor has gone too far. I cannot endorse the Governor’s sweeping and unconstitutional action today.  The Governor restored rights without any regard to the seriousness or violent nature of the crimes committed, whether these individuals have paid their court costs in full, whether they have stayed out of trouble since their release, or most importantly, whether they have paid restitution to the victims.  The action today by the Governor fails to respect victims of crime, the rule of law and is clearly unconstitutional.”

But no provision nor case is cited in this statement.  The letter actually says this:

“First, while the wording of the constitutional provision granting the powers of clemency and restoration of rights might be read to support the blanket use of these powers to benefit unnamed individuals, we think the better argument is that these powers are meant to apply to named individuals for whom a specific grant of executive clemency is sought.   A blanket order restoring the voting rights of everyone would be a rewrite of the law rather than a contemplated use of the executive clemency powers.  And, the notion that the Constitution of the Commonwealth could be rewritten via executive order is troubling.

Now I agree this order is troubling.  How does a felon determine if he or she can legally vote?  Where would such a conscientious person go to determine that?  What about a registrar of voters seeking to determine if a person before him or her can legally register to vote?  It would seem to me that the better idea would be to say:  Clemency is available and if you ask for it and meet the criteria, apply and it will be granted automatically.

But that is a political not a constitutional argument.  If we accept that the clemency power of a governor is plenary and I suggest it is exactly that than we must accept the legal validity of the order.  This order does not solve the constitutional provision permanently removing the right to vote for felons in the future.

I suggest that the Supreme Court of Virginia has held the governor’s powers are plenary.  See Wilborn v. Saunders, 170 Va. 153, 195 S.E.723 (1938):

   “By the Constitution of Virginia, the governor is empowered to grant reprieves and pardons after conviction, except when the prosecution has been carried on by the house of delegates, and to remit fines and penalties in such cases and under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by law. He is also empowered to remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction for offences, and to commute capital punishment. Const., Art. IV, sec. 5.

“It will thus be seen that certain restrictions are here imposed upon the exercise of the pardoning power which are not found in the laws of England or of the United States. But subject to these restrictions, the effect of the governor’s pardon must be determined by the same rules which apply to a pardon by the British crown or by the president of the United States.” Edwards Commonwealth, supra.

And what did our Supreme Court say about the Crown’s pardoning power?  It was plenary and at first the Governor’s power in the Commonwealth was not plenary but was gradually increased in subsequent state constitutions:

 Prior to the independence of the thirteen former British American colonies, the power to exercise executive clemency lay within the prerogative of the crown. 5 William Blackstone, Commentaries *395–96. After the American Revolution, as part of a general reaction against the unfettered exercise of executive power, Virginia and seven other newly-independent states restricted the exercise of that power to the Governor with the concurrence of an advisory board or council of some kind. The original 1776 Constitution of Virginia granted the Governor the “power of granting reprieves or pardons” but only “with the advice of the Council of State.” The Governor was not given the power to act alone in granting reprieves and pardons until adoption of the Constitution of 1851. In the constitutional revision of 1870, the Governor was given the additional power to “remove political disabilities consequent to conviction of offenses.” 2 A.E. Dick Howard, Commentaries on the Constitution of Virginia, 641–42 (1974).

Gallagher v. Commonwealth, 732 S.E.2d 22 (Va. 2012)

Now force the issue of the details and embrace it.  Discuss how Governor McDonnell started the process of liberalizing clemency and restoration of rights.  There is an excellent article at Bearing Drift by J. R. Hoeft on the McDonnell clemency legacy (Hoeft disagrees with me on the Governor’s action however).

Suggest that the governor limit his order and streamline the requests to ensure a proper voting roll for each election.  And say to those felons newly enfranchised:  Here’s why we hope you will vote for our candidates.  But let’s not offend them at the getgo.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Obama Mocks American Liberty and Spits on the American People

Tonight, December 6th, 2015, the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, in response to the first Islamic State inspired terror attack on American soil, spent twenty minutes lecturing the American People on what it means to be an American and threatening further controls against our second amendment rights. What’s more dangerous? The homicidal death-worshiping disciples practicing a 7th century interpretation of a 6th century religion, or a 21st century President threatening to take all of us back to an 18th century brand of tyranny?

obama-pointing-Getty-640x480For twenty minutes I listened to this President lecture me, not sounding like the leader of an American Nation, but sounding like a foreign leader condemning a culture and civilization he desires to snuff out. Our government is no longer American, not in any recognizable sense. If our government is American, then we should all mourn the loss of a heritage and a birthright that died this night. We should lament the tortured, twisted, confused silliness which now reigns over what was once a shinning city on a hill.

This is a President that refuses to attack our enemies because he believes that attacking them feeds into their narrative that they are war with us. This, despite that fact that Sunni and Shi’ite caliphates have declared war on Israel and America. He tells us that we must call the Islamic State “ISIL”, because it bothers them. If we really want to hurt their feelings, we’re to call them Daesh. Islamic State soldiers are beheading people, crucifying people, burning people alive, raping pre-teen girls and boys, teenagers, and women, and throwing homosexuals from building tops. Earlier this week they inspired a woman and her husband to slaughter 14 Americans. Our response? Let’s call them ISIL! Let’s call them Daesh! Let’s go to a Climate Change conference.

If this is our strategy to horrify the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and the Islamic State in Iran, our only hope is that our enemies joke to death on their own laughter.

This president is using the death of innocent Americans at the hands of Islamist terrorists to deprive us of our liberty and to take greater control over our lives. Mark Levin says that we are living in a post-Constitutional America. Levin misses the mark. We’re living in a post-American America. We’re either living in Barack Obama’s nation or we’re living in an American nation – but we can’t be living in both. The two are opposite, contradictory, at war. No President has done so much to destroy our American way of life. I look to The People’s representatives in our United States Congress to condemn this President and to vow to fight any further efforts of this pretend emperor against our American Liberty.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Exactly my Feeling, Erick! Here’s Your Image on the Virginia Right Blog!

Erick Erickson placed this up and sent it as an email to me (and ninety million others) and he asked for it to be posted and shared.  Here is his commentary:

I shot holes in the NY Times editorial

This is what I think of the New York Times editorial today. The United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks since September 11 and the New York Times’ response is that all law-abiding citizens need their guns taken away. Screw them. The New York Times wants you to be sitting ducks for a bunch of arms jihadists who the New York Times thinks no doubt got that way because of the United States.

It should be striking to every American citizen that the New York Times believes the nation should have unfettered abortion rights, a right not made explicit in the Constitution, but can have the Second Amendment right curtailed at will though it is explicitly in the Constitution.

Again, we have suffered the worst terrorist attack in more than a decade and the New York Times believes now we must have our rights taken away as a response to terrorism.

I hope everyone will join me in posting pictures of bulletholes in the New York Times editorial. Send them your response. Put them on Instagram and use the hashtag for my radio show and I may give you a shoutout. #EERS

You can follow me on Instagram and Facebook at @ewerickson

All the best,

I agree with it.  Erick Erickson is a great voice in conservatism (and a radicalized Christian!).  May his radio show become most popular ever.

PS:  No I am violating the Sanders Etiquette for Mass Shootings Rule.  This is not a comment on the shooting but rather objecting to someone else’s comment.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

Obama DOJ Declares Open Season On TEA Party

With great power comes no responsibility. The Spiderman writers clearly never consulted with the Ruling Class in Washington DC before peddling their old school moral propaganda in theaters.

Justice Department: No Criminal Charges for Lerner, Others in IRS Scandal

The Justice Department announced Friday afternoon that it will not bring criminal charges against Lois Lerner or any other IRS official involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups, in a decision Republicans ripped as a “free pass.”

In a letter to leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, the department said the investigation into the controversy will be closed — and while they found “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia,” they found “no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution.”

“What occurred is disquieting and may necessitate corrective action — but it does not warrant criminal prosecution,” Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik wrote.

comIt is important to understand what your federal government is declaring here. Conservatives have no rights. In fact, anyone opposing the Federal Government has no rights. While illegally bullying the American People in order to win elections may warrant a wagging of the finger, it simply is not a crime. Targeting of Conservatives in the United States of America will continue. If agents of the Ruling Class get caught, they will be verbally reprimanded with a wink and nod, if not coitus, and business shall continue as usual. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

That this travesty will not result in widespread protests is an indication that the federal governments tactics are working. Everyone is simply too dispirited or afraid to fight back. No abuse of power will result in criminal consequences. None of our liberties are protected – so long as you refuse to obey.

Welcome to Ameritopia.

Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

BULLETIN: Development Coming on the Indigent Defense Front and Why Should a Libertarian/Conservative Support a Statewide Indigent Defense System?

There should be a development on the indigent defense front and I’ll announce it when it is time.

In the meantime, why should a tea party guy or gal or a libertarian or a conservative support a statewide indigent defense system?

  • We stand for constitutional rights.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel to every criminal defendant and that should not be limited by poverty.  Pro-gun groups for example should support a statewide indigent defense system because the protection of one constitutional rights helps to protect others.
  • The present crazy quilt where we have public defender offices in some counties or cities and not others is unequal justice under law
  • We have the money.  The judicial branch in Virginia brought in $280,000,000 more than it spent in costs according to a letter written by several statewide attorney groups.
  • It can be done:  Other states such as Colorado have a statewide PD system.

So, let your tea party leader or the tea party federation or your favorite GOP delegate or senator.  I have communicated with both Del. Peace and Sen. McDougle.  You can do it.  Feel free to comment after you do it.

Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

You’re Wrong Senator Sanders! This Country was NOT Founded on Racist Principles!

Senator Bernie Sanders came to Liberty University.  Most of his speech was unexceptional and but one comment made me see red.  I actually lost some if not most of my respect for the candidate with the same last name as mine.  Sanders (the Senator not the blogger) said the US was founded on “racist principles”; that’s right.

Here is the article at Real Clear Politics and here is the quote:

And I would also say that as a nation, the truth is, that a nation in which many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, we have, a long way as a nation.

Now I concede Sanders (the Senator not the blogger) tried to be gracious about it BUT he is wrong.  The Vermont senator is sorry or ought to be!

The very first document affecting this nation is the 1606 Charter of the Virginia Company.  I can assure you nothing racist there unless someone is upset that there was a non-PC reason for the establishment of the Jamestown colony:  The conversion of the Native people to Christianity.  But this clause is there:

Alsoe wee doe, for us, our heires and successors, declare by theise presentes that all and everie the parsons being our subjects which shall dwell and inhabit within everie or anie of the saide severall Colonies and plantacions and everie of theire children which shall happen to be borne within the limitts and precincts of the said severall Colonies and plantacions shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunites within anie of our other dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and borne within this our realme of Englande or anie other of our saide dominions.  (Emphasis added by the blogger Sanders)

Nothing racist there; all “subjects which shall dwell and inhabit” have all the rights of Englishmen!

The first “constitution” in this future nation was the Mayflower Compact.  Nothing racist there either but there is that pesky reference to God!

Haueing vndertaken, for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente of ye christian ^faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia· doe by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and one of another, couenant, & combine our selues togeather into a ciuill body politick; for ye our better ordering, & preseruation & fur=therance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hearof, to enacte, constitute, and frame shuch just & equall lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & conuenient for ye generall good of ye colonie…”  (Emphasis added)

Gotta get rid of that reference to God’s glory – kids might think the nations was built on Judeo-Christian principles!  And we can’t have that!

How about the Declaration of Independence?  The slavery part was omitted at the request of the slaveholding colonies.  But the rest of it has that nagging clause:

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

Nothing racist in the Declaration of Independence.  No principles like whites are superior or only white males can have rights or we are the master race!  (There’s the pesky God thing again!  One more thing to remove from the Federal Common Core curriculum!)

Let’s turn to the Constitution.  Yes the Original Constitution did condone slavery (although it did not cite it by name) and regulated it.  The 3/5 clause was and is insulting to all liberty-loving people but it was not racist per se:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

It does not say one group is superior to the other.  Here is the no earlier than 1808 slave trade prohibition:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Finally the clause that caused my beau ideal William Lloyd Garrison to burn a copy of the Constitution in 1854:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

But these regulations of existing slavery are not the basic principles upon which the nation was founded.  If you want racist principles, try this:

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


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

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

That is from the Ordinance of Secession of South Carolina.

Senator Bernie Sanders has the burden of proof that this nation was built on racist principles.  If he had said racism has been a part of the history of the US since early in colonial times, I would have to agree.  But the principles upon which this nation was founded were the ones that the abolitionists and modern civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King used to call the nation to equal rights.  It was not a new idea but rather a calling back – a repentance to basic principles.  (If it was not a potential copyright violation for which permission must be cited I would cite the King “I Have a Dream” speech but I’ll never recognize that so-called right.)

Sanders owes the Liberty students and the nation a apology.  I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.


Article written by: Elwood "Sandy" Sanders

GOP: Abandon Individualism At Your Peril

The Republican Party has always suffered from a fragmentary view of individualism. Evangelical Christians and Catholics, accustomed to higher authorities and collectives, have struggled with the individualist and materialist natures of liberty and capitalism, and Evangelical Christians and Catholics make up a significant portion of the Republican population.

Now, before going all crouching tiger hidden dragon on me, before reading what I have to write, I would like to say, up front, that the arguments to follow are not an attack on Christian dogma or orthodoxy, tradition or heritage, but rather a defense of realities which have nothing to do with religious faith, with our personal relationships with our Savior or God, nor any other contradiction with the Judeo-Christian ethic. That said, and in the hope that you will stay with me to the end, I’ll endeavor to make my case.

What is individualism? Rarely does Wikipedia get something right, but I believe their definition is preferable for our purposes this morning, as opposed to a 2,000 word soliloquy where I self-indulgently flex my philosophical muscles.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.[1][2] Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[3] and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,[3] while opposing external interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[3] Individualism is often contrasted with totalitarianism or collectivism.[4]

The first sentence is the most important, so I’ll repeat it: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. This is not narcissism or egoism, but rather a recognition of the moral worth of each individual human being, who have been created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

adam+smith+individualismIt is by virtue of the moral worth of the individual that we protect the rights of the individual, the smallest minority in existence, against all forces, collectives, organizations, and governments. It takes less than a second, once you value The State, or the society, or the political party, above the moral worth of the individual, to begin immediately trampling the rights of individuals. If you do not believe that this is happening in America today, I would suggest that you either have a very cynical view of liberty or of what it means to have moral worth.

There is no freedom without a society that strictly and ferociously protects the rights and liberties of each individual. Just as there can be no free economy without a studious adherence to the material and objective principles of economy which we have so long ignored and attempted to trick.

It is right and good to tithe, to give to charity, to help the poor, and to reach out to widows and orphans and to the mentally ill. It is wrong and vicious to usurp the wealth of individuals, against their will, for purposes of charity that they may or may not support. Welfare is not Christian. Food Stamps are not Christian. Free phones and telephones are not Christian.

Laziness is a vice; and if we have substituted the Federal and State governments as agents of our Christian Charity because we’re too busy or distracted, then we are in the wrong and there is still no virtue in this giving, which is collected by the taking. Look at what this federally orchestrated charity has done to our society. It has done what none of us would have freely chosen to do – to bankrupt us… to have spent, not merely our own wealth but the wealth of the generations to come? How can we call this virtuous?

We must understand that our moral and religious duties are ours to pursue as individuals, freely and without coercion. The moment we put our governments in charge of our welfare, we began the slow erosion of our communities and our individual liberties. That our governments employ force and coercion out of “good will”, we are supposed to accept it as right and just, when what would be right and just is that all good will and charity should be dispensed freely and cheerfully by us as individuals.

For so many reasons and causes, we have sacrificed our individual liberty and responsibility and handed power to our governments, and just look at the results! Is this really the culture you want to live in? Is this really the kind of government you want to live under? Have you not witnessed that as the government grows, the role of the Church subsidies and the sovereignty of the individual human being is destroyed – each of us herded into this group or that, this classification or that?

Imagine the capital we’d have as individuals… Imagine how much more we could give to our communities, churches, and temples… If it were not for the burdens of these monstrous taxes and the weight of a national debt we can never repay. Imagine how much more capital we would have without the 40,000 regulations enacted by these last two administrations, without congressional legislation. Ladies and Gentlemen, the legislature is dead. We are being ruled by an executive bureaucracy that produces no wealth. It seeks to control and dominate every aspect of our lives and at every turn our individual liberties are sacrificed for the “common good”. What common good can there be, truly, if we as individuals, in common, have no liberty?

These governments of ours threaten us with debt and war and tyranny. We will not suffer the consequences as collectives, but as individuals. It is not “our veterans” the group that suffers and dies on waiting lists at our VA Hospitals. They are heroic individual men and women who have been abandoned because they, as a group, have no political clout. Are you not disgusted? Their fate today will be your fate tomorrow. If the Republican Party doesn’t change, reverse course, and become a powerful advocate of the rights of each American citizen, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender.

I cannot continue to support a Republican Party that does not support my individual sovereignty.

But if you believe that our government has strengthened our culture, our communities, our churches and temples, and our economy by virtue of their efforts to work for “the common good”, then stay the course. If you do not believe this is the case, then now is the time to change course, as individuals, together.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Birth-Right Citizenship and the Minority Replacement Program

You’ve already heard everything anyone has to say on Birth Right citizenship. You’ve heard Bill O’Reilly and Mark Levin, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, Jeb Bush and Rush Limbaugh, Sandy Sanders and Bearing Drift. How many more opinions could you possibly stand? So, read the 14th Amendment and read what the authors of the 14th Amendment had to say about the 14th Amendment. Read the stories at Breitbart. For the love of God, read Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution and make up your own mind.

However, I do have something to say on this topic; something that has been bugging me for a while.

After the Civil War, the Union, the United States of America, had to amend the United States Constitution to put to rest the vestiges of slavery in the States. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. The 14th Amendment ensured the citizenship, rights, and liberties of African-American slaves and changed the traditions of citizenship in the United States. Whereas, before the conclusion of the Civil War, any citizen of any State was thereby a citizen of the United States. But many States didn’t want African Slaves and their offspring to vote. So the 14th Amendment stripped the States of their authority over naturalization and imposed upon them a standard, that anyone who was born in the United States, without allegiance to foreign nations, was, by right, a United States citizen. The 15th Amendment ensured that those who had previously been slaves and the children of those who had previously been slaves should enjoy the right to vote.

These three amendments were written on behalf of African slaves and their offspring, deprived of rights and human dignity, such that they should become American Citizens with all the rights and privileges associated with that qualification. Certainly, these three Amendments could not cure the culture and racism and insecurity felt by the European immigrants now ruling over the New World; but they were a great and magnificent beginning.

cabinToday, our Republican and Democrat leaders would have us exercise these amendments on behalf of Central American Colonials, literally colonizing North America, taking the jobs of the decedents of the African (and then American!) slaves on whose behalf these amendments were written. So while African Americans languish under the Progressive Economy of President Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Central American Colonials are given special rights and privileges, because they and their illegal-resident offspring are willing to work for less and provide greater profits for politically well-connected American Corporations.

We complain about the crime and poverty in our inner cities amongst the African American population while replacing their jobs with Central American migrants here without ever attending to our immigration laws and jurisprudence?

Is it because the Democrat and Republican Party Leaderships believe that the African Americans need to be replaced? They’ve served their purpose, but they have gotten uppity? They are demanding too much? They might actually want the American Dream? They must now be replaced, against all laws and against all reason, with Central American Colonials seeking to take advantage of the largest black labor market on planet earth?

Illegal Immigration is the most racist thing I’ve seen in my lifetime. Now, I grew up in Baltimore County and around Baltimore City, and I never saw much racism. Probably because all the racists got shot before I was born. Good Riddance. I have witnessed racism (both ways) in Virginia in the small towns of the Northern Neck in the late 1990s and in South Eastern North Carolina in the mid-2000s. But I’ve never seen anything like this.

The Federal Government of the United States of America is intentionally creating a new underclass, while using established law to incarcerate millions of African Americans. Mandatory Minimums aimed and directed at African Americans are fair game, but we can’t enforce our immigration laws because it’s not compassionate?

I’m sorry, how stupid does the Chamber of Commerce think we are? How stupid does the Democrat Party think we are? How stupid does the Republican Party think we… ok, we already know the answer to that question.

I am disgusted by our government, by these two political parties, and by everyone in support of such a remarkable hostility to the rule of law, to justice, and to equality in the United States of America.

He Who Shall Not Be Named is right! Ted Cruz is right! Mark Levin is right! I contend that those who disagree are dangerously close to siding with the most racist minority-replacement-program in the history of the United States of America.


Article written by: Steven Brodie Tucker

Martha Boneta Documentary on Virginia Farmer’s Triumph Over Corruption, Cronyism Wins Anthem Film Festival Awards

Martha-Boneta-Virginia-592x353Farming in Fear” is the Story of Martha Boneta’s Struggle against Power and Privilege

(WASHINGTON, DC) – In a stunning victory for the cause of property rights throughout the United States, “Farming in Fear,” won both the Excellence in Filmmaking for a Short Documentary and the Audience Choice awards at the prestigious Anthem Film Festival at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas July 11, 2015.

Directed by Sean Malone of Honest Enterprise, “Farming in Fear” features commentaries by renowned defenders of property rights, including author/farmer Joel Salatin, John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute and Constitutional scholar Mark Fitzgibbons.

Martha Boneta’s dream of becoming a farmer is realized when her family purchases a 64-acre property on the edge of Virginia’s fabled Shenandoah Valley. But Martha soon enters a Kafkaesque world of phony documents, trumped-up charges, and GESTAPO-style “inspections” of her property. Her dream becomes a nightmare until she does the one thing her tormentors never counted on: She fights back. Over time, the elaborate web of deceit spun by the well-heeled interests coveting her farm is exposed for all to see.

“Facing overwhelming odds in the form of collusion involving a ruthless local government, a rapacious environmental group, powerful real estate interests, and even the IRS, Martha Boneta stood her ground,” says Bonner Cohen, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). “The film documents her struggle against corrupt forces intent on driving her off her land. Her ultimate triumph is inspirational and so is this documentary.”

“I’m grateful that after seeing what had happened to me, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation providing additional protections to family farmers and local landowners and I’m grateful to Anthem Film Festival for helping people everywhere understand that you can fight back and win” Boneta said.

Article written by: Tom White