Admin

Minority Report Reveals CRT Soaks Federal Indian Policies

Mar 272024

https://dyinginindiancountry.com/2024/03/01/minority-report-congressional-commission-on-native-children/

Is current federal Indian policy, soaked in Critical Race Theory, responsible for the growing abuse, addiction and suicide rampant among tribal youth on so many reservations?

A minority report to the congressional ‘Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children’ has been released, shedding light on the detrimental effects of current federal Indian policies on families of tribal heritage. The report, titled “Minority Report: Commission on Native Children,” is a result of extensive research and testimonies from grassroots, individual Native Americans and their families across the country – not powerful entities that subsist on government funding.

The report highlights the existence of an “iron triangle” within federal Indian policy, which has allowed for the implementation of laws and policies that some report as controlling, oppressive, and unconstitutional to Native American families. These policies have had a devastating impact on the well-being of Native American children, leading to high rates of poverty, extreme neglect, physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse, and suicide within these communities.

Commissioner and author of the minority report, Elizabeth Morris, stated, “If tribal members are ‘wards’ of the federal government, as patronizingly claimed, then the federal government has a ‘trust responsibility’ to protect the children at all cost – even if at the cost of ruffling political feathers. Unless, of course, the ‘trust responsibility’ only refers to protecting tribal leadership at all cost – even if at the cost of the children.”

The minority report calls for urgent action to address the systemic issues within federal Indian policy and to protect the rights and well-being of Native American children. It also includes recommendations for policy changes and reforms that would empower Native Americans as individuals, families, and communities and promote local control.

Morris further stated, “The federal government needs to acknowledge and rectify the harm caused by these current policies on Native American families. The minority report serves as a wake-up call to Congress and the public, urging them to take action and support the well-being of Native American children.”

The release of the minority report has sparked a national conversation about the need for reform in federal Indian policy and the protection of Native American children. The full report can be accessed at https://dyinginindiancountry.com/2024/03/01/minority-report-congressional-commission-on-native-children/.

The Birth Of Jesus Christ, Our Lord

Comments Off

Dec 242023

As Told in Luke 2:1-20

Jesus came into the world, not to condemn it, but to save it – by sacrificing his life for ours. [John 3:17]

The Birth of Jesus:

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Shepherds and the Angels:

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Luke 2: 1-20 (NIV)

Merry Christmas to All – and to All a Good Night!

400th Anniversary of Pilgrims’ New World Arrival: How Their Faith in Liberty Shaped a Nation

Comments Off

Nov 202023

02-18-2020 Paul Strand CBNNEWS

America

celebrates the birth of George Washington this weekend. Washington – known as the Father of our Country – and other Founding Fathers based their shaping of the nation on a foundation laid by the First Fathers. Some of the most influential were the Pilgrim First Fathers who arrived in the New World in 1620.

Plymouth, Massachusetts and its Pilgrim re-enactors are going all out this summer for this 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims’ arrival.

Recreating the Landing & the World of the Pilgrims

Paul Jehle of the Plymouth Rock Foundation and also a Pilgrim re-enactor will even preach an old Pilgrim sermon.

He informed CBN News, “There’s a string of town events taking place beginning in April. But we’re doing an event June 28 to 30 emphasizing the faith of the Pilgrims. What truly brought them here to the New World. The inspiration they had from the Scriptures and the believers. And most people are unaware of the fact that it was a church plant that founded New England in 1620.

“And so we’re going to be emphasizing that. Re-enacting a Pilgrim church service, historic tours, seminars, workshops, a dramatic musical, and actually re-enacting the landing in front of Plymouth Rock on Tuesday, June 30,” he added.

Jehle pointed out these Pilgrims were fervent disciples, dedicated to the God of Liberty who promised His truth would set them free.

Part of the Reformation Revival

“The first freedom that they really began to be cognizant of was internal liberty, liberty of conscience, freedom from sin. That’s why they said God began to reform their lives by His grace,” Jehle explained. “And this was the most important thing the Pilgrims began with. Because they were a remnant as a part of a great revival known as the Reformation. So here they were, at the peak of that revival, and they were very conscious of this.”

While God gave them spiritual liberty on the inside, they were persecuted in England and granted no religious liberty on the outside. They saw the potential for enjoying that religious liberty in the New World. After storms blew them to the isolated Cape Cod coastline, the Pilgrims had to come up with their own form of government and gave the future America civil liberty in the form of the Mayflower Compact.

The Cult of Advocacy: Comments on the State of Legal Scholarship

Comments Off

Oct 312022

By Rob Natelson, October 23, 2022, Independence Institute.org

This posting relates some experiences from my long career writing for legal academic journals. It was triggered by Professor Gregory Ablavsky’s response to my “Cite Check” of his article, Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause (“Beyond”), and I use features of that response for some of my examples. But if you are interested only in a shortcut telling you who is being accurate in the Natelson-Ablavsky exchange, then I recommend the following:

* Read his quoted extracts from Beyond and from his Fifth Circuit appeals court brief. They are in the Cite Check, which cites to the original documents so you can verify the accuracy of my reproductions.

* Next, read the quotation in the original source. These also are reproduced in the Cite Check.

* Compare the original source with how Ablavsky represented it. The differences should be apparent to any fair minded person. And the reasons behind the differences should be obvious.

The Larger Context: The Cult of Advocacy

That said, the fundamental problem addressed here goes far beyond selective quotation. It is that much—likely most—law review writing is not scholarship at all; it is advocacy in scholarly drag.

The passionate desire to “prove the case” creates incentives to engage in selective quotation. It also fosters other questionable practices: enlisting irrelevant evidence, ignoring and manipulating relevant evidence, and substituting word play for more substantial material. More rarely, you find what appears to be outright plagiarism, as I discovered recently in a law professor’s article in American University Law Review.

The cult of advocacy encourages commission of such misdemeanors, and they are further enabled by how legal academia hires law professors, defines their jobs, and operates law journals.

First Experiences

In 1971, I was a second year law student beginning a stint on the Cornell Law Review. One day a senior editor (i.e., a third year student) assembled us newbies and told us we should start working on our student notes. (A note is a short article on a legal topic by a student law journal staffer.) He handed us a list of suggested topics prepared by the senior editors. Most or all of the topics explicitly prescribed our conclusions. The one I (reluctantly) accepted read something like, “Explain why the New York courts should grant summary judgment more readily in personal injury cases.”

After researching every relevant case, I concluded that, in fact, New York State courts should not grant summary judgment more readily in personal injury cases. I reported this to a senior editor, and that proved to be one step in the deterioration of my relationship with the editorial board.

Another step occurred when I was sent to the library to edit an article by a law professor from another school. The text of the article was substantially complete, but the footnotes contained many gaps. Quite a few featured the instruction, “Student: Find sources to support text.” When I inquired as to why we had accepted such an unfinished and obviously biased article, a member of the editorial board told me the…

The Indian Child Welfare Act: An Unconstitutional Attack on Freedom

Comments Off

Mar 082022

In Support of Brackeen

Adapted from the thesis ‘Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act,’
by Elizabeth Morris*

PDF: The Indian Child Welfare Act: An Unconstitutional Attack on Freedom

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” and the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...” (Congress 1787). But for almost 200 years, the U.S. federal government has assumed a power that deprives members of federally recognized Indian tribes of these privileges – and for almost a century, the federal government has claimed wardship over U.S. citizens who happen to be tribal members.

Yet, despite the nineteenth century U.S. federal court rulings that propagated this view, disagreement continues as to whether tribes located within the United States are indeed sovereign, whether Congress has plenary power over them, and whether individual tribal members have U.S. Constitutional rights.

Some tribal officials argue that international law should not have been forced upon non-European cultures that had no say in it. Others point to natural law and international law – the grounds for treaties between nations – as basis for uninterrupted tribal sovereignty.
Some tribal representatives argue that the Constitution has no authority over tribes or tribal members. Others cite the Constitution when seeking judicial redress for their community.
Some historians say the Constitution never gave Congress anything more than the power to regulate trade with tribes. Others claim the Constitution not only gave Congress total and exclusive plenary power to decide almost every aspect of life in Indian Country – but by unstated extension, gave the executive branch this power as well.
Some say treaties promise a permanent trust relationship. Others point out that most treaties have clearly specified final payments of federal funds and benefits and were written and signed with clear intent for gradual assimilation.

Where Does the Plenary Authority of Congress Come From?

Law professor Robert G. Natelson writes, “For many years, Congress has claimed, and the Supreme Court has conceded, a plenary power over American Indian tribes” (2007, 204). But, according to Natelson, there are problems with how historical documents have been construed. Legal scholar Matthew L. M. Fletcher agrees and notes that the origin of federal authority over Indian tribes is unclear, as the Constitution carried no “clear textual provisions” concerning such power. Due to that lack, the Supreme Court has created a body of “unwritten constitutional law” (Fletcher 2006, 654). Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s 2004 majority opinion in United States v. Lara is an example of Congressional authority in dealing with Indian affairs being categorized as “beyond the strictures of the Constitution” (Fletcher 2006, 656).

Authority is not Inherited from Britain

This unwritten authority, according to Natelson, is said by some to have been inherited from the British Crown, which transmitted “extraconstitutional sovereign authority to the Continental Congress, which then passed it to the Confederation Congress, which in turn conveyed it to the federal government” (2007, 204). However, Natelson argues:

As a matter of historical record, the British Crown did not transfer its foreign affairs powers to the Continental Congress, but to the states. The Confederation Congress did not receive its authority from the Continental Congress, but from the states. The federal government did not receive its powers from the Confederation Congress, but from the people (R. Natelson 2007, 205-206).

Natelson further contends that case law does not support the doctrine of inherent plenary authority. The Supreme Court “has acknowledged the [plenary] theory, but only rarely and in limited respects” (R. Natelson 2007, 204). He added, “The Supreme Court’s reluctance to fully accept inherent sovereign authority is understandable, for the doctrine is fundamentally unconvincing. It clashes with the Constitution’s underlying theory of enumerated powers and would render some enumerated powers redundant.” (R. Natelson 2007, 205).

Natelson explained that the dicta of Chief Justice Marshal and others has frequently been cited as recognizing Congress’s plenary authority over Indian Affairs – but it does not (R. Natelson 2007, 204). Other cases often cited are similarly lacking. “A passage in Chief Justice Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford[1] suggests an inherent sovereignty theory, but later in the opinion Taney made it clear that he was invoking an enumerated power” (R. Natelson 2007, 204). Natelson explained further, “Kansas v. Colorado (1907),[2] the Supreme Court’s clearest pronouncement on inherent sovereign authority in internal affairs, actually rejected the doctrine. United States v. Curtiss-Wright resuscitated it, but only for foreign affairs. In 2004, the Court suggested an application to Indian concerns, but the Court’s language was neither definitive nor necessary to its decision” (R. Natelson 2007, 205).

Lastly, if inherent authority had in fact existed in any context when the federal government was created, Natelson clarifies its fate: “[T]he doctrine of inherent sovereign authority is simply contradicted by the text of the Constitution. Any extra-constitutional authority inhering in the federal government in 1789 was destroyed two years later, when the Tenth Amendment became effective. By its terms that Amendment precluded any federal power beyond those bestowed by the Constitution… precisely to re-assure Anti-Federalists who feared that the new government might claim powers beyond those enumerated” (R. Natelson 2007, 206-207).

Authority is not from the U.S. Constitution

Another theory is that plenary authority comes from within the Constitution itself. Several Constitutional powers are suggested, including the War Power; the Executive Power; the Necessary and Proper Clause; the Treaty Clause; the Territories and Property Clause; and the Indian Commerce Clause. However, Natelson contends “…[M]ost of those provisions can be readily dismissed” (R. Natelson 2007, 207). For example, Natelson states that if it were true that the Territories and Property Clause, were the source of plenary power:

…then legal title to this land is federal ‘property’ subject to congressional management under the Territories and Property Clause, and such title would give Congress at least some jurisdiction over the minority of Indians who reside on reservations. But this begs the question of the source of authority for holding reservation land in trust. As already noted, pre- or extraconstitutional power is not a viable answer. Nor, as originally understood, is the Territories and Property Clause, for that Clause originally granted Congress the unlimited power to dispose of federal lands within state boundaries, but not the unlimited capacity to retain or acquire such lands. As for the treaty power, it happens that not a single Indian treaty provides that the government has retained or acquired trust title to the reservation. The sole references to trust arrangements in Indian treaties are peripheral provisions, such as temporary trusts incident to sale and trusts to fund Indian schools and other amenities (R. Natelson 2007, 209-210).

Just one theory for the origin of plenary power remains. Felix Cohen, in his ‘Handbook of Federal Indian Law,’ states that Congress has power over tribes through the Indian Commerce Clause as long as members are wards of the government (Cohen [1942] 1971, 353). A large body of law has been written in support of this.

Authority is not from the Commerce Clause, specifically

The United States Constitution was written to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the People. As part of that protection, the Constitution needed to clarify roles and responsibilities necessary for the promotion of a stable and productive economy. The founding fathers understood that regulation of commerce was a proper function of government, and regulation of interstate and international commerce was a proper function of federal government. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers vested in the federal government to regulate commerce between lower and foreign political entities:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes… (Congress 1787). [stresses added]

The commerce clause is one of the Constitution’s central pillars. It prevented states from setting up trade barriers, while at the same time not giving the federal government complete power. In protecting markets, the commerce clause is at the heart of what has become one of the “largest common markets in the world” (Weingast 1995, 8). But this clause also contains one of the limited mentions of tribes within the Constitution. The third point within the Commerce Clause refers to Congress’ power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Congress 1787, Art. 1 Sec 8).

The United States Constitution goes on to reserve all other rights and powers to the people and to the States. Amendment IX declares that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and Amendment X declares “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” (Congress 1787).

Despite these clarifying amendments, the Bureau of Indian Affairs claims “Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government,” with exclusive authority over the tribes (BIA, 2013). Constitutional Law Attorney Philip J. Prygoski also affirms Congress’s constitutional power to regulate commerce with tribal governments and states the “Indian Commerce Clause” is the primary power source and vehicle for Congress to define tribal sovereignty (Prygoski 2015).

Yet Natelson asks, “[W]hy were treaties understood for so long as the principal method of dealing with tribes if Congress could regulate all affairs under the ICC?” (R. Natelson 2019). Indeed, why were treaties necessary if the Constitution had already given Congress power over the tribes?

In his historical research, Natelson found that the “drafting history of the Constitution, the document’s text and structure, and its ratification history all show emphatically that the Indian Commerce Power was not intended to be exclusive” to the federal government. He further notes, “Throughout the Colonial and Revolutionary period, colonies and states frequently entered into treaties with Indians within their territorial limits. New York even appointed treaty commissioners after the Constitution had been issued and ratified” (R. Natelson 2007, 223). Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, and William Samuel Johnson, also alluded to this state authority to regulate commerce with Indian tribes inside their borders (R. Natelson 2007, 225).

State authority over commercial regulation aside, United States v. Kagama (1886)[3] “rejected the Indian Commerce Clause as a source of plenary congressional authority” (R. Natelson 2007, 210). The Supreme Court stated “it would be a ‘very strained construction’ of the Commerce Clause to conclude that it authorized creation of a federal criminal code for Indian country” (R. Natelson 2007, footnote 65, at 210 ). Kagama “did recognize unenumerated federal power over Indian affairs, but the Court’s justification was Indian dependency on the federal government, not inherent sovereignty” (R. Natelson 2007, 204-205).

Patent attorney Nathan Speed notes that when Congress first began asserting authority over tribes beyond trade, the Indian Commerce Clause was not cited as the source of that authority. Further, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Clause was the source of plenary power over tribes (Speed 2007).

Nevertheless, according to Cohen, the Clause has become “the most often cited basis for modern legislation regarding Indian tribes” [ (LexisNexis 2005, 397) ] In the case Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, (1989), it was stated that “the central function of the Indian Commerce Clause is to provide Congress with plenary power to legislate in the field of Indian affairs” (R. Natelson 2007, 211).

Many have argued that the Founding Fathers intended the word “commerce” within the cited clause to refer not just to merchant trade, but to all economic activity and even beyond to any and every transaction. Natelson contends that a meaning that expansive would not belong in a list of ‘enumerated’ powers. However, this argument persists, and being so pervasive, several studies have recently examined how the word was employed in constitutional, lay, and legal contexts “before and during the Founding Era” (R. Natelson 2007, 214).

Those studies[4] found that “‘commerce’ meant mercantile trade, and that the phrase ‘to regulate Commerce’ meant to administer the lex mercatoria (law merchant) governing purchase and sale of goods, navigation, marine insurance, commercial paper, money, and banking (R. Natelson 2007, 214). Natelson states:

In both lay and legal discourse in the 18th Century, the term “commerce” “was almost always a synonym for exchange, traffic, or intercourse. When used economically, it referred to mercantile activities: buying, selling, and certain closely-related conduct, such as navigation and commercial finance (2006).

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence in United States v. Lopez, (1995)[5], agreed, stating:

At the time the original Constitution was ratified, ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes. See 1 S. Johnson, A. Dictionary of the English Language 361 (4th rev. ed. 1773)[6] (defining commerce as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of anything; trade; traffick”); T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1796) (“Exchange of one thing for another; trade, traffick”). This understanding finds support in the etymology of the word, which literally means “with merchandise.” See 3 Oxford English Dictionary 552 (2d ed. 1989) (com–“with”; merci–“merchandise”). In fact, when Federalists and Anti Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably (United States v. Lopez 1995).

Thomas quoted his Lopez comments in his concurrence in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013), and added, “The term ‘commerce’ did not include economic activity such as ‘manufacturing and agriculture,’ ibid., let alone noneconomic activity such as adoption of children” (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 2013). Thomas also cited Natelson nine times in his concurrence.

“Thus,” Natelson writes, “‘commerce’ did not include manufacturing, agriculture, hunting, fishing, other land use, property ownership, religion, education, or domestic family life.” In fact, the Federalists during the Constitution’s ratification explicitly maintained that “all of the latter activities would be outside the sphere of federal control” (R. Natelson 2007, 214-215). He adds in his article concerning the legal meaning of the Commerce Clause, “The fact that other uses of the term “commerce” existed during the pre-ratification and post-ratification periods, does not change the accepted general meaning of the word ‘commerce’” (R. G. Natelson 2006, 789, 811)

Finally – and most obvious – the word ‘commerce’ could not have had a broader meaning for Indian tribes than it had for States and foreign Nations, which are located in the exact same clause (R. Natelson 2007, 215). Natelson notes, “I have been able to find virtually no clear evidence from the Founding Era that users of English varied the meaning of “commerce” among the Indian, interstate, and foreign contexts” (R. Natelson 2007, 216). The United States government has not asserted plenary jurisdiction over state and international actors in the same manner it has tribes and tribal members.

Natelson further asks “If a broad power was intended, why use the same word for Indians as was used for foreign nations and interstate commerce? Why not use instead the readily available and traditional phrase ‘Indian affairs’?” After all, he notes, the writers of the Constitution were meticulous in the word usage and “knew about the presumption of the same word not changing meaning” (R. Natelson 2019). Natelson wrote in 2019:

Edmund Randolph’s list of powers that can be exercised under the Commerce Clause with foreign nations, interstate commerce, and Indian tribes is a list of examples of common kinds of regulation within the three categories. It does not define different scopes. For example, Randolph speaks of restricting the travel of merchants with the Indians, but he could have used exactly the same example for merchants with foreign countries, as in the case of embargoes (R. Natelson 2019).

Attorney Krystal V. Swendsboe concurs, quoting Vielma v. Eureka Co.,[7] “When the terms of a statute are ambiguous, we will employ cannons of statutory construction to discern the legislature’s intent…In the absence of some indication to the contrary, we interpret words or phrases that appear repeatedly in a statute to have the same meaning’(citations omitted) ” (Swendsboe 2019) and in Clark v. Martinez,[8] “To give th[e] same words a different meaning for each category would be to invent a statute rather than interpret one” (Swendsboe 2019).

Assistant Professor of Law, Gregory Ablavsky, agrees and stated: “[T]he history of the Indian Commerce Clause’s drafting, ratification, and early interpretation does not support either ‘exclusive’ or ‘plenary’ federal power over Indians. In short, Justice Thomas is right: Indian law’s current doctrinal foundation in the Clause is historically untenable” (Ablavsky 2015).

The final draft of the Constitution gave James Madison, a nationalist, less authority than he had wanted for the federal government and the ratification process reduced the powers even further. But even with this, not even Madison “suggested granting Congress plenary dominion over the Indians. His proposal was for Congress to ‘regulate affairs with the Indians’—to govern transactions between tribes and citizens. Yet this still was more than the convention, or the public, was willing to accept” (R. Natelson 2007, 258). Fellow delegate, John Rutledge of South Carolina, instead suggested to the Committee of Detail a federal power concerning Indians that “stripped down Madison’s proposal to a mere commerce power” (R. Natelson 2007, 258).

Among the issues defined by the Federalists as outside of congressional regulation (and therefore, under state jurisdiction) were “crimes malum in se (except treason, piracy, and counterfeiting), family law, real property titles and conveyances, inheritance, promotion of useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights, control of personal property outside of commerce, torts and contracts among citizens of the same state, education, services for the poor and unfortunate, licensing of public houses, roads other than post roads, ferries and bridges, and fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises” (R. Natelson 2007, 248-249).

To summarize, the Indian Commerce Clause was included to give Congress the power to regulate trade between tribes and non-tribal members. It gave Congress the ability to override state laws, but not to abolish or alter “pre-existing state commercial and police power over Indians within state borders” (R. Natelson 2007, 265). The Commerce Clause did not establish a ‘Trust status” authorizing a pupilage condition. Nor did it grant Congress a plenary police power over tribal members or a license to interfere in Indian affairs.

Natelson concludes, “…the results of textual and historical analysis militate overwhelmingly against the federal government having any ‘inherent sovereign power’ over Indians or their tribes” and “…the Founders intended the states to retain their broad residual police power” (R. Natelson 2007, 266).

One of the most Damaging Results of Unconstitutional Congressional Authority: The Indian Child Welfare Act

Tribal member and Family Law Attorney Mark Fiddler examines the constitutional ramifications of the Indian Child Welfare Act through the lens of the case, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, and various State ICWA laws. He explains that one of the questions asked in Adoptive Couple was “if a birth father has no rights under state law, what specifically is it in ICWA that accords him greater federal rights?” (2014, 3).

The attorneys for the birth father and Cherokee Nation had argued that the constitutional issues did not apply and cited Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974), in which the Supreme Court had construed that preferential treatment for Native Americans was based on their unique political status, not on their heritage. Attorneys for Adoptive Couple, however, argued that “differential treatment predicated solely on “ancestral” classification violates equal protection principles” and cited Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 at 514, 517 (2000). When unequal treatment is predicated on a status unrelated to social, cultural, or political ties, but rather blood lineage, the ancestry underpinning membership is “a proxy for race.” Rice, 528 U.S. at 514.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his Adoptive Couple concurrence, cited Professor Rob Natelson’s white paper concerning the Commerce Clause and the unconstitutionality of the ICWA. Justice Thomas explained he was construing the statute narrowly to avoid opening the door to rule the ICWA unconstitutional. But he noted, “In light of the original understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause, the constitutional problems that would be created by application of the ICWA here are evident. First, the statute deals with “child custody proceedings,” §1903(1), not ‘commerce’” (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 2013).

While the court did not address the constitutional issues, Fiddler believes that “…at a minimum, Adoptive Couple stands as a clear signal from the Court that the application of ICWA, and perhaps other Indian preference statutes, cannot be based merely upon a person’s lineal or blood connection with a tribe. Something more is required. In Adoptive Couple, it was the requirement of parental custody” (Fiddler, Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance 2014, 7-8).

Families and children are not ‘commerce’ with Indian tribes and thus are not legitimately dealt with under the Indian Commerce Clause, yet tribal attorneys continue to claim ICWA is constitutional, and some assert a right to claim any child they choose as a member. In reference to Baby Girl, Chrissi Nimmo, Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation stated, “… we repeatedly explained that… tribes can choose members who don’t have any Indian blood” (Rowley 2015).

The increased push for jurisdiction over other people’s children has increased the push back from those who hold the ICWA is unconstitutional. Swendsboe states in her amicus brief concerning the 2018 ICWA case Brackeen v. Bernhardt:

Because adoption proceedings like this one involve neither “commerce” nor “Indian tribes,” there is simply no constitutional basis for Congress’ assertion of authority over such proceedings. Also, the notion that Congress can direct state courts to apply different rules of evidence and procedure merely because a person of Indian descent is involved raises absurd possibilities. Such plenary power would allow Congress to dictate specific rules of criminal procedure for state-court prosecutions against Indian defendants. Likewise, it would allow Congress to substitute federal law for state law when contract disputes involve Indians. But the Constitution does not grant Congress power to override state law whenever that law happens to be applied to Indians. Accordingly, application of the ICWA to these child custody proceedings would be unconstitutional (Swendsboe 2019).

ICWA: Necessary for the Child’s Well-being …or the Tribal Government’s?

Referring to the condition as the “Split-feather Syndrome,” Locust claims to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998). The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “Split-feather syndrome” during Locust’s limited study (DHS 2005). The MDHS did not mention that there were only twenty, hand-picked participants in the study. All twenty adoptees were removed from their biological families and placed with non-native families. There were no control groups to address other variables.

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” According to Cleaveland:

Locust asserts that out-of-culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects (Cleaveland 2015).

While supporters of ICWA often cite “Split-feather Syndrome” as proof the ICWA is in the best interest of children, and some children and families faced with foster care, adoption or child custody disputes have felt protection through the ICWA, others have felt forced into relationship with tribal governments – and some have been forced into dangerous, abusive homes (Morris 2019, 194-221, 237-251)[9].

Federal government has focused on how the ‘child drain’ has affected tribal governments and the future of the tribe as an entity but has paid little attention to the children themselves: their needs, passions and diversity of individuals affected by federal Indian policy – many of whom have spiritual beliefs, political views, or parental practices unlike those promoted by the tribal government. There is no acknowledgement that most of the children eligible for tribal membership are multi-racial and live outside of Indian Country. Not only are the views of individual tribal members dissimilar to each other, but it is also unarguable that children of slight tribal heritage have many more non-tribal relatives than they have tribal relatives – and might actually be bonded to non-tribal relatives.

The “best interest” that select federal agencies appear to be more concerned with is that of the tribal government. The Obama administration’s ICWA rules in 2016 prejudicially assumed it is always in the best interest of a child to be under jurisdiction of tribal government, even if parents and grandparents have chosen to raise them in an alternative environment and worldview. The 2016 rules marginalize the rights of birth parents as well the reality of extended tribal and non-tribal birth family.

Yet, the Obama ICWA rules were long called for by tribal leaders. Tribal governments, using ‘wardship’ and ‘trust relationship’ as revenue vehicles, requested Congress enact legislation giving increased control over certain vulnerable children to tribal governments and have repeatedly returned to DC to insist Congress make the resultant ICWA even more stringent – covering more people and closing all “loopholes” for escape. When some members of Congress recognized the overreach and constitutional implications of ICWA amendments and blocked them from passage, tribal leaders went to the White House to insist on the strict regulation of independent families through the executive branch – even going so far as to accuse some families of committing ‘fraud’ by not admitting they had tribal heritage.

Tribal leaders have also asked state governments to take responsibility for ensuring larger numbers of children and families remain within the reservation system – even if against the will of the children and families – and state governments have acquiesced. Ironically, in doing this, tribal leaders, under the premise of strengthening jurisdiction over children of heritage, have essentially admitted their lack of it. In going to Congress and the president with the expectation and demand that they do something about grounding enrollable children to the reservation system, tribal leaders have admitted they lack the authority and are willing to submit to the sovereign authority of the United States of America. They have also essentially admitted that the best interest of children and families are second to the best interest of the tribe as a corporation.

Conclusion

The national dilemma has become whether an individual’s right to privacy, constitutional equal protection, and freedom of association are of less priority than tribal sovereignty and the future of a tribe.

Too many within federal government choose to please political leaders and protect tribal interests and sovereignty rather than save children’s lives. The federal government has reduced children to the status of a ‘resource’ for tribal governments, just as the private property of individual tribal members has been relegated to the control of the BIA as a resource for tribal governments. Children are treated as material assets, and adults are treated as children. Throughout history and every heritage, various men have coveted power over others. Today, tribal governments, while accepting and playing into Congress’ claim of plenary power, have themselves, also, claimed exclusive jurisdiction and authority over unwilling citizens. Tribal governments regularly lobby and petition both Congress and the White House to codify tribal jurisdiction over the lives, liberty, and property of everyone within reservation boundaries as well as some outside reservation boundaries. While claiming to have exclusive jurisdiction, tribal governments have paradoxically requested and given blessing for the federal government to manage children of tribal heritage – asking Congress to write the Indian Child Welfare Act and the executive branch to write federal rules governing the placement of every enrollable child in need of care. Some tribal governments and supportive entities have gone further – asking even governors and state legislators to expand on and strengthen control over children with heritage.

Independent political communities have a legitimate right to determine their own membership. However, basing that determination on an individual’s heritage and then forcing the individual into political affiliation because of that heritage is the epitome of racism. While family and community are important to children of every culture, tribal government claims that eligible children are lost without tribal culture infer there is something inherently different about children of tribal heritage as opposed to other children. Recognition that children of every heritage are individuals with their own wants, needs and goals is quashed.

While it is unarguable that a certain amount of strain occurs when traversing disparate cultures, children from around the world are successfully and happily adopted into American homes on a regular basis. Yet, it has become accepted belief that children of tribal heritage are, as a rule, unable to thrive outside of Indian Country. The evidence is to the contrary. The vast majority of tribal members live outside of reservation boundaries, and many are living happy and successful lives. Meanwhile, according to statistics provided by numerous tribal organizations, the BIA, FBI, and ACF, crime and physical, and sexual abuse have been steadily worsening on many reservations – even with reservation crime and child abuse frequently under-reported.

A concerned community does not wait for additional studies to act on an obvious and immediately known danger. We do not wait for a study to rush a child out of a burning building. When a child is bleeding to death, we know to immediately put pressure on the wound and get the child to a hospital. Unwillingness to deal effectively with the immediate needs of children suffering extreme physical or sexual abuse from extended family or community – no matter where it is – casts doubt on tribal and federal government assertions that safety of the children is of paramount importance. These ten statements are not absolute to all reservations and individuals, but clarify the general reality witnessed:

Crime and child abuse are rampant on many reservations
Crime and child abuse are rampant because the U.S. Government has set up a system that allows for extensive abuse and crime to occur unchecked and without repercussion.
Because a certain amount of crime has been allowed to occur unchecked, many families who desire a safer community for their children (not all) have moved away from the reservation system.
At the same time, gang related tribal members remain or move to the reservation because it is protected from state police. With the increase in gang activity there is an increase in crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, child neglect, child abuse, and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
As a result of the migration off the reservation, tribal governments experience a drop in federal funds.
As an increasing percentage of healthier families leave the reservation system, an increasing percentage who remain willingly participate in the crime and abuse.
As a result of increasing crime and child abuse, more children are in need of care.
Some tribal governments are reticent to admit they no longer have enough safe homes to place children in, and not wanting to place the children off the reservation, have placed children in questionable and even dangerous homes.
It appears more important to some in federal government as well as some in tribal government to protect tribal sovereignty than it is to protect children.
In other words, there seems to be a protection of tribal sovereignty at all costs – even at the cost of children’s lives.

In contrast, the following five points clarify self-evident truths that policy makers need to know:

International law and treaties are valid and relevant
Life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness are rights endowed by the Creator to all men equally, no matter their heritage.
The vast majority of tribal members live outside of reservation boundaries, and many are living happy and successful lives.
A wide body of research confirms that foster care children of every heritage experience higher levels of emotional and psychological trauma.
A growing body of work by legal and historical researchers is finding current federal Indian policy unconstitutional

Although the ICWA has some statutory safeguards to prevent misuse, numerous families continue to be hurt by the law. While the ICWA itself states it is not to be used in custody battles between birth parents, parents can refuse tribal court jurisdiction, non-tribal grandparents have the same rights as tribally enrolled grandparents, and courts can deviate from placement preferences with “good cause,” what has played out in various state and tribal courts has not always followed the wording and intent of the law. Further, wording in a law is of no help if one does not have the money to hire an attorney who knows Indian law. Many times, families fighting ICWA are low income. Further, many non-tribal courts do not understand the law and defer to the tribal court. The ICWA has given some tribal leaders, social services, and tribal courts a sense of entitlement when it comes to children of heritage.

The era of the Indian Child Welfare Act will become one of the numerous shames in American history. While many have been led to believe the ICWA is a righteous law, the reality is that powerless citizens have again been placed under subjugation.

If the ICWA were to remain law, it would require several amendments:

Children of tribal heritage need protection equal to that of any other child in the United States. State health and welfare requirements for foster and adoptive children should apply equally to all. Importantly, those assigned to child protection, whether federal, state, county or tribal, need to be held accountable if a child is knowingly left in unsafe conditions. (Title 42 USC 1983).
Fit parents, no matter their heritage, should have the right to choose healthy guardians or adoptive parents for their children without concern for heritage or the overriding wishes of tribal or federal government. US Supreme Court decisions upholding family autonomy under 5th and 14th Amendment due process and equal protection include Meyer vs. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Brown v. Board of Education.
The ‘Existing Indian Family Doctrine’ should be available to families and children who choose not to live within the reservation system. Alexandria had held that “recognition of the existing Indian family doctrine [was] necessary to avoid serious constitutional flaws in the ICWA”. Thus, if the existing Indian family doctrine has already been ignored in current ICWA cases, then serious constitutional flaws may have already occurred.
United States citizens, no matter their heritage, are guaranteed civil rights which include fair hearings. When summoned to a tribal court, parents, and legal guardians, whether enrolled or not, should be fully informed of their rights, including 25 USC Chapter 21§1911(b), which states “Transfer of proceedings [to tribal jurisdiction]” will occur only “…in the absence of good cause to the contrary, [or] objection by either parent….” The rights of non-member parents must be upheld. According to 25 USC Chapter 21§1903(1)(iv), ICWA placement preferences “shall not include a placement based … upon an award, in a divorce proceeding, of custody to one of the parents.” ICWA placement preferences also include all grandparents – no matter the heritage. Finally, non-members must be able to serve county and state summons to tribal members within reservation boundaries and must have access to appeal.
A “qualified expert witness” must be someone who is able to advocate for the well-being of the child, first and foremost, not a tribe. An expert witness needs to be a professional person with substantial education and experience in the area of the professional person’s specialty and significant knowledge of and experience with the child, his family – and the culture, family structure, and child-rearing practices the child has been raised in. There is nothing a tribal social worker inherently knows about a child based on nothing more than the child’s ethnic heritage. This includes children of 100% heritage who have been raised apart from the tribal community. A qualified expert witness needs to be someone who has not only met the child, but has worked with the child, is familiar with and understands the environment the child has thus far been raised in and has professional experience with some aspect of the child’s emotional, physical, or academic health. This is far more important than understanding the customs of a particular tribe.
Finally, if tribal membership is truly a political rather than racial designation, than the definition of an “Indian” child is one who is “enrolled” in the tribe, not merely “eligible.”

Allowing tribal governments the right to determine their own membership at the expense of the rights of any other heritage or culture as well as at the expense of individual rights is indeed political. However, relatives being told these children are suddenly now members of an entity with which the family has had no political, social, or cultural relationship betrays the reality that at least in the case of their child, “race” is determining membership.

Keeping children, no matter their blood quantum, in what a State would normally determine to be an unfit home – solely on the basis of tribal government claims that European values do not apply to and are not needed by children of tribal heritage – is racist in nature and a denial of the child’s personal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Tribal members are not just U.S. citizens; they are human beings. They are not chattel owned by tribal governments or servants indentured to the success of tribal governments, nor are they lab rats for Congress, pawns to be used at the negotiating table, or zoo exhibits for patronizing tourists looking for entertainment.

Even if a child had significant relationship with tribal culture, forced application of ICWA conflicts with the Constitution. There is nothing within the U.S. Constitution nor any treaty that gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals stay connected to a tribe, support a particular political viewpoint, or raise their children in a prescribed culture or religion.

For this reason, the ICWA cannot remain law. Natelson has shown that the ICWA goes far beyond the limited scope of the Indian Commerce Clause. While some tribal members appreciate that proper application of the Constitution means that Congress has no plenary power over tribal affairs, it also means that Congress has no power to enact laws such as the ICWA.

In light of constitutional issues inherent to the foundational enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the ICWA must be repealed. The Commerce Clause does not give Congress plenary authority over tribes or children of heritage, and tribal governments do not have the authority to force membership onto individuals, no matter their age.

Allowing individuals to employ their full constitutional rights would preserve to citizens their God-given right to individuality, liberty, and property, which is what the United States government is tasked to do. In the words of Dr. William Allen, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, MSU and former Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

“… We are talking about our brothers and our sisters. We’re talking about what happens to people who share with us an extremely important identity. And that identity is the identity of free citizens in a Republic…” (2010)[10]

*BIO:

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. She is also a Congressional Commissioner on the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy at Liberty University.

Ms. Morris graduated with a Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and earned her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019, both at Liberty University. Her Master Thesis is titled: “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also earned a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

FOOTNOTES

[1] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)

[2] Kansas v. Colorado 206 U.S. 46 (1907)

[3] United States v. Kagama 118 U.S. 375, 378 (1886)

[4] See generally Randy E. Barnett, New Evidence of the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 55 ARK. L. REV. 847 (2003); Randy E. Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, 68 U. CHI. L. REV. 101 (2001); (R. Natelson, The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause 2007, Supra note 2, 214 )

[5] United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 585, 586, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995)

[6] (reprint 1978)

[7] 218 F.3d 458, 464–65 (5th Cir. 2000)

[8] 543 U.S. 371, 378 (2005)

[9] SEE The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act: ‘ICWA Case Studies’ and ‘Child Abuse.’

[10] Dr. William B. Allen’s keynote speech at the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’s ICWA Teach-In, titled ‘Indian Children: Citizens, not Cultural Artifacts,’ on October 28, 2011, in the chambers of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

REFERENCES

Ablavsky, Gregory. “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1012, 1017.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. No. 12–399 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013).

Allen, William B. “ICWA Teach-in, Keynote.” Washington DC: CAICW, 10 2010.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmation (Brackeen v. Zinke, 2018). 4:17-CV-00868 (U.S. Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit, February 2019).

Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.

Cohen, Felix S. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1942. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, [1942] 1971.

DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.

Fiddler, Mark. “Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance.” Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum (Minnesota State Bar) 22, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 10.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “The Iron Cold of the Marshall Trilogy.” N.D. Law Rev (Michigan State University College of Law) 82 (2006): 627.

LexisNexis. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. LexisNexis, 2005.

Locust, Carol. Split Feather Study. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

Morris, Elizabeth. “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.” Scholars Crossing, 8 2019: 337. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

Natelson, Rob. “Constitutional Law Professor.” Email Correspondence. 1 22, 2019.

Natelson, Robert G. “The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause.” St. John’s Law Review 80 (2006): 789, 805–06.

Natelson, Robert. “The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Denver University Law Review 85 (2007): 201.

Prygoski, Philip J. “From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court’s changing stance on tribal sovereignty.” GP Solo Magazine, 7 2, 2015.

Rowley, Sean. 43rd Symposium on the American Indian at Northeastern State University . April 17, 2015. http://m.tahlequahdailypress.com/news/icwa-discussed-at-symposium-seminar/article_08846b3a-e543-11e4-8421-7744ec7971c6.html?mode=jqm (accessed April 20, 2015).

Speed, Nathan. “Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Boston University Law Review, 2007, 87 ed.: 467, 470-71.

United States. “Constitution.” Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. 1787. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/.

United States v. Lopez. 93-1260 (U.S.S.C., 4 26, 1995).

Weingast, Barry R. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1995: 1-31.

Wiley Files Amicus Brief in High-Profile Supreme Court Case on Behalf of Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare and Former ICWA Children and Families

Comments Off

Oct 112021

October 11, 2021

Washington, DC – Wiley, a preeminent DC law firm, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare in Brackeen v. Haaland. The brief was filed in support of adoptive families and states in this high-profile case, which urges the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision involving the rights of Native American children and their families under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). The brief was joined by seven individual signatories who are former ICWA children or are parents to ICWA children, all of whom have been harmed by ICWA.

Wiley partner Stephen J. Obermeier and associate Krystal B. Swendsboe, who authored the amicus brief, are members of the firm’s Issues and Appeals Practice and are representing the nonprofit Alliance on a pro bono basis.

The case, which stems from a child-custody dispute, addresses the harm suffered by Indian children and their families as a result of ICWA – such as the denial of the full range of rights and protections of the federal and state constitutions to the petitioners when subjected to tribal jurisdiction under the ICWA.

“For nearly fifty years, ICWA has imposed race-based classifications on Indian children and their families – a clear violation of Equal Protection – and has caused horrendous individual suffering as a result,” Obermeier and Swendsboe explained in the Alliance’s brief.

As noted in the brief, this case raises particularly significant issues for Alliance because its members are birth parents, birth relatives, foster parents, and adoptive parents of children with varying amounts of Indian ancestry, as well as tribal members, individuals with tribal heritage, or former ICWA children – all of whom have seen or experienced the tragic consequences of applying ICWA’s race-based distinctions. The brief includes, as examples, stories from the individual amicus signatories who have been harmed by ICWA’s race-based distinctions and discriminatory placement preferences.

In addition to violating the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, the ICWA exceeds the authority granted to Congress under the Indian Commerce Clause, according to the amicus brief.

Congress “may not exercise power over family and custody matters under the guise of regulating commerce with Indian Tribes,” the brief argued. “ICWA, therefore, exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce, as it is entirely unrelated to commerce and intrudes on noncommercial subjects belonging entirely to the states.”

https://www.wiley.law/pressrelease-Wiley-Files-Amicus-Brief-in-High-Profile-Supreme-Court-Case-on-Behalf-of-Christian-Alliance-for-Indian-Child-Welfare-and-Former-ICWA-Children-and-Families

My continuing Act of Civil Disobedience and WHY:

Comments Off

Jan 212021

by Elizabeth Morris –

I will continue to refer to our elected Commander-in-Chief as President Donald J. Trump. I will refer to the person currently sitting in the office as Joe Biden, and his running mate as Kamala Harris – with no titles – because neither currently holds elected office.

That is, obviously, a very mild form of Civil Disobedience. But under the current vindictive and threatening environment – it is the safest act I can perform. But even a mild stand such as this, in the current environment, can bring a person trouble – as any suggestion the election was stolen is grounds for punishment.

That said, recognizing that Donald J. Trump is our elected President also means I will not obey executive orders signed by Joe Biden, who has no elected authority to institute executive orders. The executive orders signed by our elected president Donald Trump continue to be the legal authority.

Constitutionally, Congress had no choice but to certify the state’s election results. Nevertheless, that does not make Joe Biden the elected president. If President Trump in fact received the votes necessary to win the individual states – then he is, in fact, the elected president. Based on the sworn, eye-witness testimony of hundreds of poll workers and poll watchers from November 3rd on – testimony the main stream media purposefully ignored and did not allow the general public to see – there is more than enough evidence that “irregularities,” if not outright fraud, took place.

This is the evidence that several states and federal legislators were acting upon when they protested the election. These legislators are now being vilified for acting upon the evidence they were shown. They are being punished for believing and standing up for their constituents – some of whom showed documented evidence.

NO, Joe Biden – there can be no unity with this. Not ever.

Unfortunately, the state legislatures did NOT understand the Constitutional power and authority they had over the electoral votes. Neither did President Trump’s legal team fully understand. The courts were not the venue for the battle. The state legislatures were. In fact – the state legislatures have full constitutional authority – NOT the governors. The state legislatures did NOT have to have permission from the governor to hold a special session with regard to electoral votes.

Please read the opinion of constitutional authority and Senior Advisor to the Convention of States, Rob Natelson¹, on the issue:

Supreme Court cases give state legislatures responsibility for resolving contested presidential vote – (Epoch Times)

Natelson also wrote this article:

Natelson: State legislatures responsible for resolving contested presidential vote

AND – here is another article Natelson wrote on the subject, in question and answer format:

Q&A for state legislators and citizens: The Constitution and how to settle the election

By: Rob Natelson|Published on: Nov 18, 2020|Categories: Constitution, Elections, Electoral College

Irregularities in the presidential election returns of six states have sparked the question “What next?” The states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Should their state legislatures intervene? Confusing the issue are media and other claims that are dead wrong.

This column corrects the mistakes and clarifies duties and options.

Why the mistakes? Many in the media are strongly motivated to secure the election of Joe Biden—or, more accurately, the defeat of Donald Trump. They have been uncurious about alleged election irregularities or how the Constitution and federal law address presidential election deadlocks.

Even most experts are unfamiliar with this subject. On average, law school constitutional law courses spend 2/3 of their time on two percent of the Constitution (the 1^st Amendment and two sections of the 14^th) and largely ignore the presidential election process. Most law professors are unaware of the Constitution’s presidential election rules or the history behind them.

Now some questions and answers:

Q.Why are state legislatures involved?

A. You don’t learn this in school, but the Founders put the state legislatures near the heart of the political system. So much so that during the public debates over ratification of the Constitution, one of the most popular pro-Constitution writers (Tench Coxe) affirmed (pdf) that once the Constitution was ratified, ultimate sovereignty would lodge in a combination of state legislatures and state conventions.

Q. How is that relevant to presidential elections?

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to determine how electors are appointed. This power was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year in Chiafolo v. Washington (pdf). The Court held that state legislatures not only control choice of electors but can even direct them how to vote.

Q. Are there roles for Congress in the presidential election system?

A. Yes. One is that the Constitution’s Same Day Clause or Presidential Vote Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 4) authorizes Congress to select a uniform national day for voting by presidential electors and a (necessarily uniform) national time for voting for president electors. Congress has responded with legislation whose current version was enacted in 1948: December 14 for voting by electors (3 U.S. Code §7) and November 3 for voting for electors (id., §1).

Q. But this year many people voted by mail and the balloting continued over weeks . . .

A. Yes, and that was a violation of both the Same Day Clause and federal law. Some of the election irregularities were those the Same Day Clause was adopted to prevent.

Q. So, where does the state legislature come in?

A. Federal law, 3 U.S.C., § 2, recognizes state legislatures’ continuing power to choose electors after November 3 if the election on that date fails. It reads:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

Q. Is that relevant to all states this year?

A. No—only to the six states with contested elections. Investigations over the next few weeks may show that preliminary results in some of these states are accurate. Then the law will apply only to states (if any) where the results remain helplessly muddled.

Q. How do lawmakers learn if claims of irregularities are true?

A. They should see how the lawsuits challenging the election unfold in their states over the next few days and weeks. I also recommend that legislative committees hold hearings of their own.

Q. To overturn an election, do you have to show fraud?

A. No. Any irregularities altering the results may be sufficient. These include (1) election officials treating different votes in different ways, in violation of the 14^th amendment (Bush v. Gore, pdf), (2) changing election procedures during or after the election—or before the election in a way that confuses voters, and (3) even innocent mistakes, including software or machine errors.

Q. I read an article saying that fraud is sufficient to upend an election, and that there is no need to show it changed the result. Is this correct?

A. No. A court is unlikely to set an election aside if the results would have been the same anyway.

Q. If a state legislature finds that the results are hopelessly muddled, what should it do?

A. The principal options are (1) call a special election limited to presidential electors only or (2) choose the electors itself. Some may gripe about a quick election repeat, but successive elections are common in some other democratic countries.

Q. Is it true that only the governor may call the legislature into special session?

A. It is true in some states. Of course, this is no problem if the governor is cooperative. Some state constitutions allow a petition signed by a certain number of lawmakers to call a special session.

Q. My state’s law says only the people, not the legislature, can choose electors. State law further requires a 60-day notice period before a special election. Doesn’t this prevent our state lawmakers from acting even if federal law would seem to authorize them to do so?

A. No. If the legislature can come into session it may—either with gubernatorial cooperation or by a veto-proof majority—change the laws as necessary and allow the people to vote.

Q. What if the governor is not cooperative and there is no veto-proof majority?

A. Then the legislature may call itself into session and choose the electors itself.

Q. Huh?

A. This is one of those things not taught in law school. Here’s the background:

The Constitution delegates power to federal departments and officials. But it also assigns responsibilities to persons and entities outside the federal government. These persons and entities include state governors, presidential electors, convention delegates, voters, jurors—and state legislatures. The courts refer to the exercise of these responsibilities as “federal functions.” (See my forthcoming article on the subject in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.)

When the Constitution assigns responsibility to the “state legislature,” it may mean either the state’s entire legislative apparatus, including the governor, or the representative assembly standing alone, without the governor.

Q. Go on . . . .

A. The Constitution gives state legislatures power to regulate federal elections. In this case, the delegation is to the entire legislative process including the governor. Ariz. State Legislature v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n. (pdf). But when state legislatures act in the constitutional amendment process or elect functionaries themselves, they act alone, without gubernatorial involvement.

Q. For example?

A. Before the 17^th amendment, the state legislatures elected U.S. Senators, and the governor had no say in the matter. Choice of presidential electors is almost certainly subject to the same rule. Federal law seems to recognize this when it provides, “Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed . . . in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” Surely Congress did not expect the legislature to go through the entire law-making process in a constricted period of time. It contemplated the legislature choosing the electors itself or setting up an expedited process.

Q. Okay, but if the state constitution says only the governor can call a special session, how can the legislature call itself into session?

A. When a state legislature exercises a “federal function,” its power comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, and it is not bound by state rules. The judiciary has said this repeatedly. The leading case is the Supreme Court decision in Leser v. Garnett (pdf), written by the celebrated justice, Louis Brandeis.

Q. Of the six contested states, all but Nevada have Republican-controlled legislatures. I’ve heard it suggested that they not choose electors at all. That way, neither Trump nor Biden will have 270 electors (a majority of the whole number of 538), forcing a run-off election in the House of Representatives. Although the Democrats will have a slim majority in the new House, the GOP will hold a majority of state delegations. Since presidential voting in the House is by state, it will elect Trump.

A. The suggestion is unwise. First, state lawmakers would, justifiably, take at least as much political heat for simply punting as for calling a new election or choosing the electors.

Second, the 12^th amendment says that only if no presidential candidate receives “a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed” does the election go to the House. If none of the five contested states with Republican legislatures appoints electors, then there will be only 465 “Electors appointed.” If, as is almost certain, Nevada goes for Biden, then that would give him 233 votes—a majority of 465. No House run-off.

If fewer than five Republican legislatures abstain, then Biden will win the remaining states, and with them the Presidency.

Q. So what should state lawmakers do in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?

A. Ignore the media gaslighting and exercise their constitutional responsibilities. Monitor the state election challenges closely. If no clear winner appears in, say, two more weeks, then either call a snap election using old-fashioned paper ballots in fixed polling locations or, if the governor does not cooperate, call themselves into session and choose the state’s presidential electors. In the latter case, lawmakers can blame it all on the uncooperative governor. Remember that the process has to be complete before the electors meet on December 14.

This column first appeared in the Epoch Times.

Tags: Election 2020, Elections, Electoral College, state legislature

Rob Natelson: In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been repeatedly cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and published or cited by many top law journals (See: https://i2i.org/author/rob/) He co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). He was a law professor for 25 years and taught constitutional law and related courses. He is the Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at Colorado’s Independence Institute.

———————

Elizabeth Morris is the administrator of the ‘Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare’ – a national non-profit she and her husband, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa tribe, founded in 2004. Ms. Morris has been writing, lobbying, and advocating on issues related to federal Indian policy since 1995 and is currently working on her PhD in Public Policy: Social Policy.

Ms. Morris graduated with a Bachelor of Science, Interdisciplinary Studies: Government and Policy, Communication, and Health Science magna cum laude in August 2016 and earned her Master of Arts in Public Policy with Distinction in July 2019. Her Master Thesis is titled: “The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act.’

Ms. Morris also earned a Bachelor of Arts in Christian Ministries; Associate of Science (Registered Nurse), a Diploma of Bible & Missions, and is the author of the book, ‘Dying in Indian Country.’

7 Acts of Peaceful Civil Disobedience you can do.

Comments Off

Jan 042021

Civil Disobedience is an act of peaceful defiance to the government in order to gain concessions. Civil disobedience is not a disregard for law or a disrespect of law-officers. It is a nonviolent “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands” and is usually done collectively, although not always. Gandhi referred to it as “satyagrahi,” which meant “truth-focused, non-violent non-cooperation.”

Civil Disobedience draws attention to the difference between constitutional ‘rule of law’ and illegitimate power grabs. It is a last resort after properly organized petitions, legal voting, respectful lobbying of officials and other steps have failed. Although it is non-violent and careful not to infringe on the life, liberty or property of others, one must be prepared for possible jail time or other punishment when practicing Civil Disobedience.

With respect to Civil Disobedience, St. Paul urged the Church of Christ living in Rome to “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship,” and “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:1b-2a). He goes on to explain how we are to use our bodies and skills for God’s glory – reflecting his love, service, humility and mercy. But also, to hate what is evil and cling to what is good (Romans 12:9b). In hating evil, he warns, do “not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath . . . Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.” (Rom. 12: 19 & 21). In the face of profound and intractable disagreement, Christians are to stand as ambassador’s in chains. While Romans 13 instructs Christians to submit to state authorities, Ephesians 6:10-17 instructs Christians to

¹⁰…be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. ¹¹Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. ¹²For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. ¹³Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. ¹⁴Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, ¹⁵and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. ¹⁶In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. ¹⁷Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Ephesians 6:10-17

The balance is in prayerful, peaceful, Civil Disobedience.

Many of the “protests’ that took place around the nation in 2020, including Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland, as well as in Baltimore in 2015 and Ferguson and St. Louis in 2014, were not examples of Civil Disobedience. They were riots, often ending in criminal vandalism, arson, and theft.

Many of their methods maliciously disregarded the lives, liberties and property of others in their community. They destroyed the shops of struggling, low income neighbors; injured or murdered innocent bystanders and law-enforcement officers, and robbed people of their liberty by preventing them from trans-versing the roadways on their way to work, school; daycare to pick up children; hospitals for medical care, and more.

Despite rhetoric otherwise, those types actions did not bring wide sympathy or popular support to the cause they were touting. While many who were repelled by the violence (as well as increasingly nonsensical policies involving pediatric gender transitions, abortion of full-term children, and other social extremism) did not speak out due to intimidation by the ‘cancel culture’ rooted within the anarchy, their true feelings were evidenced by the push-back at election time – with an increasing number of citizens fleeing the Democratic Party as it seemed to support the lawlessness.

It is now time for citizens to stand up for truth and justice through the use of genuine civil disobedience – while doing nothing that would harm the life, liberty or property of your neighbors.

PASSIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Passive Resistance is the determination not to cooperate with government overreach, in particular where there is no rule of law involved. Go on with life as you normally would. Simply refuse to do as expected or listen to new directives.

This can be as simple as refusing to take down political yard signs – (or putting them back up if you have already taken them down). Refuse to concede that a lawful election has been completed. Continue supporting your candidate with a lawn sign.

Refuse to stop working or going to church when ordered. Continue using proper antiseptics in cleaning, social distance if possible, and wear masks if you feel necessary, but knowing that varied doctors and scientists are not in agreement as to the benefit of various public health directives, refuse to allow the government to sabotage your life, liberty and property any longer.

Refuse to accept a vaccine that uses the cells of innocent children. Determine you will not condone government claims that protection of citizens requires the murder of defenseless babies – nor be an accomplice to it.

Refuse to use any pronoun other than the common pronouns of the 20th Century, and apply them as you feel most appropriate. This is not about hurting the feelings of those who want to choose their own pronouns. The reality is that far left activists do not get to dictate grammar. Many doctors believe it actually does a teenager more harm than good to play along with what might be just temporary confusion or rebellion. Politely, calmly, but resolutely, disobey the language authoritarians.

English subject pronouns include I, you, he, she, it we, and they. English object pronouns include me, you, him, her, it, us and them. Possessive variants include my, mine, your, yours, his, hers, its, ours and theirs. Toss a “self” on the end of the possessives if you want to be reflexive or intensive. And that is it.

PROACTIVE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Active Civil Disobedience involves setting aside a portion of time for rebellion, knowing it could bring unpleasant repercussions.

Participate in Peaceful marches – While it began as a peaceful and licensed protest – not an act of Civil Disobedience – DC officials have taken steps to make the day there unpleasant. Thus, marchers will be showing up in defiance of public officials. The March to Save America Rally begins at 7am on Wednesday, January 6 at the Ellipse in Washington DC. Find out more at https://trumpmarch.com/

Participate in Peaceful Sit-ins – on Tuesday, January 5th, beginning at 9 am, citizens are called to stage ‘sit-ins’ at the offices of their governors, Attorneys General, and Secretary of State. If you do not live in or near your state capitol, stage a ‘sit-in’ at the closest state office of your US senator or congressman – or at the election office of your local city hall or county courthouse. If you are not allowed in the building, you should gather outside the main doors – peacefully ‘sitting-in’ for justice and liberty, demanding that

1. A genuine investigation of voter fraud be conducted, and
2. Safeguards be enacted to ensure honesty in future elections, and
3. NO stimulus funds be spent on congressional pork or foreign quid-pro-quo. Instead, debt relief for struggling US citizens is needed.

Participate by Peacefully chaining oneself to structures – Without damaging the structure in any way, including with permanent paint – and without infringing on the free movement of other citizens.

These are just some examples. There are many ways citizens can peacefully resist illegitimate authorities.

Why we have the Electoral College

Comments Off

Dec 272020

In most states, business owners who own a Public Service Commission license are required to serve citizens in every corner of their counties. This, obviously, is because certain areas of the counties – due to distance or other factors – might not be as profitable to support, but need service nonetheless. So the State mandates service to meet the needs of even the far flung.

That is essentially what the forefathers did when designing the process for electing the president. Although the 13 States had suffered together under British monarchy, they had never been united. They were each governed independent of one another, with their own laws and customs. While most of the colonists wanted to come out from under the British tyranny and knew they needed some type of unity for defense against England and other foreign nations, none wanted to lose their unique identities and culture to a federal system. They did not want to subject themselves to a new tyranny.

Some of the 13 states were quite large and populated; others were not. So it was natural for the smaller and less dense states to be afraid they would be overpowered within a united Congress. Thus a lot of the negotiation within the Continental Congress and later on in the writing of the Constitution concerned preservation of the voice and sovereignty of the individual states.

The government they devised was extremely unique to the world at that time. Each state would maintain their sovereign independence with equal voice and representation in the federal government. This system bore resemblance to some historical republican senates (‘republican’ being a descriptive adjective, not a noun), but there were differences. Importantly, the new government would be a democratic republic. (in this sentence, the word ‘democratic’ is the adjective).

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and primary author of the Bill of Rights, repeatedly emphasized that the United States is a “republic” and not a “democracy.” Meaning, the federal government was designed to give all the states equal representation.

It was up to the states to ensure that all their citizens had an equal voice in who represented their state in the federal government.

The Electoral College was an essential part of this. It was designed to ensure that each state has a voice in the election of the president. In this design, small states and rural citizens are just as franchised in the process of electing the president as are the large states and cities. It works to unify the country and ensure a government that is representative of all regions and interests – meeting the needs of even the far flung.

Later on, amendments were added to further ensure the equality of citizen voices and votes within the states. Remember – this system of government was extremely unique to the world at that time and was essentially an experiment in design. It needed some amendments along the way.

That said, the goal had always been that residents of very small, rural cities in low population states – often, the bread basket or fuel resource of the rest of the nation – would not be mere subjects to – or ‘serfs’ of – the residents of large cities or the wealthy.

[This is also why some members of the Continental Congress lobbied for anti-slavery laws, and some northern state legislatures [early-on] passed anti-slavery laws and lobbied for similar laws in the federal Congress]

Without the electoral college today, there would be no point in small states with low population to bother voting. Candidates would focus on Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and other large, populated cities and would not be concerned with most other areas. An ultra-conservative candidate would not have much chance of winning the large American cities – thus diversity of voices in candidates would be reduced.

The Electoral College FORCES presidential candidates to form large coalitions that represent states and Americans across the nation – rather than just particular regions or urban areas.

DAY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, Tuesday, January 5th

Comments Off

Dec 252020

On Tuesday, January 5th, beginning at 9 am, citizens are called to stage ‘sit-ins’ at the offices of their governors, Attorneys General, and Secretary of State.

If you do not live in or near your state capitol, stage a ‘sit-in’ at the closest state office of your US senator or congressman – or at the election office of your local city hall or county courthouse.

If you are not allowed in the building, you should gather outside the main doors – peacefully ‘sitting-in’ for justice and liberty, demanding that

1. A genuine investigation of voter fraud be conducted, and
2. Safeguards be enacted to ensure honesty in future elections, and
3. NO stimulus funds be spent on congressional pork or foreign quid-pro-quo. Instead, debt relief for struggling US citizens is needed.

…[There are several ideas about how debt relief could be handled, but all focus on saving the economy, saving homes, and saving small businesses in our communities – along with a refusal to allow Congress to spend our money on their irrelevant pet projects and pay-offs.]

During this Sit-in,

– Homemade signs and banners are encouraged
– Violence is forbidden
– Vandalism is forbidden
– Littering is forbidden

We are NOT Anarchists. We are better than that. We genuinely care about our communities.

Citizens are welcome to arrive and leave throughout the day as needed but ensure a steady presence of citizens remains throughout the day.

VETO the stimulus bill

Comments Off

Dec 242020

President Trump,

Please VETO the stimulus bill, and instead – – use that money to forgive all – or most – federal loans to US CITIZENS – benefiting RURAL and MIDDLE CLASS rather than the swamp and their cronies.

While forgiving all federal loans is contrary to conservative and fiscal wisdom – Congress intends to spend that money anyway – and MORE within the first few weeks of a Biden presidency.

WE NEED to throw a wrench. Forgiving all federal loans will benefit ALL Americans in the long run by unburdening many in the middle class – THUS stimulating the economy. It will also take money out of Congress’s thieving hands and put Pelosi, Biden and the swamp back in their place. PLEASE DO THIS. Call it a time for Jubilee.

Fellow citizens,

Congress is going to spend that money whether we like it or not. We have tried for years to stop their corrupt spending. We haven’t even slowed them down. What we are talking about here is essentially taking the money AWAY from Congress. You can consider it robbing CONGRESS before they rob us – or consider it simply emptying their purse. Either way, taking money away from Congress benefits EVERYONE.

Further…forgiveness of federal loans benefits everyone because it involves small business loans, agriculture loans, and home mortgages. Even if a community member does not have a federal loan, money is being put back into the community rather than sent to Pakistan for gender studies. This is what stimulating our economy is all about. Small businesses are saved, farms are saved, and homes are saved. More money is available to spend and reinvest. More people can be hired. The economy gets a shot in the arm. An additional benefit is that those on the left who appear to want all that destroyed are set back.

Lastly, the current stimulus bill is NOT about helping people at all. It is just an excuse to fund pork and foreign quid-pro-quo. We can’t stop them from this criminal overspend because the GOP is going along with them – again.

The only thing we can hope for is a way to

1. take away their excuse for pork bill – as well as
2. take away part of their expected budget, and
3. do it fast, before Congress overrides the veto.

If you have a different suggestion that could do all those things – say it.

Why did Public Policy become so quickly insane? Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

Comments Off

Nov 282020

While neither eighteenth century’s Adam Smith nor nineteenth century’s Karl Marx invented capitalism or socialism, neither capitalism nor socialism were clearly expressed prior to their attempts to express and build on these observed trends in varied societies. Feudalism had been the primary economic system for centuries, and capitalism and socialism grew “only after feudalism’s demise” (Blomberg 2012).

Twentieth century Liberal Philosopher John Rawls now identifies five types of social order: “laissez‐faire capitalism [individual, natural liberty], welfare‐state capitalism, state socialism with a centrally controlled economy, property‐owning democracy, and liberal (or democratic) socialism” (Pogge & Kosch, 2007, p. 133). We will discuss the relationship between Socialism, Marxism, and Critical Theory.

Key Ideas of Socialism

Socialists claim their key ideals include “principles of equality, democracy, individual freedom, self-realization, and community or solidarity” (Pablo Gilabert 2019). Despite the necessity of individual determination for each these noble objectives, socialists call for strong government legislation to control and enforce the exercise of them. According to Mises, “… a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody,” is required by socialism (Mises, 2006).

Key Ideas of Marxism

Marxism originated in the mid-1800’s. Introduced by German Philosopher Karl Marx, it is a political theory involving “dialectical materialism,” a resultant “labor theory of value,” and “transition from past to future” (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 803). Marx viewed capitalism’s law and order as just a facade hiding a struggle between two main classes: “Capitalists, who own the productive resources, and the workers or proletariat, who must work in order to survive” (Olman 2004). Marx endeavored to analyze the relationship between them. His analysis involved three theories: “the theory of alienation, the labor theory of value, and the materialist conception of history” (2004). According to Marxism, the ruling class can control the “ideological outlook” of the working classes through production of materials that the working-class desire. “As long as the workers agree with the ideology that they are subject to, they will acquiesce to their place in the structure of society” (Formby 2015).

The result, according to Marx, of a “natural progression” that societies undergo as they and their economic systems are born, progress and either die off or reach a new level, is Marxism. Socialism is the “unrealized potential inherent” within the wealth and organization of Capitalism itself, which allows for “a more just and democratic society in which everyone can develop his/her distinctively human qualities” (Olman 2004). Capitalism matures to Socialism, which in turn progresses to Communism/Marxism, which Marx described as a utopia that will no longer need politics or religion. (Strauss and Cropsey 1987, 826).

Marx drew his ideas from “German philosophy, English political economy, and French utopian socialism” (Olman 2004). One of those was Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and social reformer. He had taught in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s that there needed to be a separation of “law as it is from law as it ought to be” (Hart, 1958). Calling this “Legal Positivism,” he pushed the detachment of statements of fact from statements of value and therefore, a detachment of law from morality and God’s Word. Instead of basing law on Scripture or a moral goal to be attained, he wanted law to be viewed only in terms of how it was written. The decision as to how it should be written should be based on his “fundamental axiom” that law should reflect whatever brings “the greatest happiness” to the greatest number of people (Daniels 2012). Popular opinion would be the definition of right and wrong. His ideas formed a basis for welfarism (Hart, 1958).

While socialism and communism deny the reality of a morality defined by God, many adherents recognize the difficulty of selling these social theories to the general public. Marxism comes out of naturalism and leads to an emphasis on “economic and political solutions,” including behavior modification of the population and redistribution of wealth (Fischer, 2013). Knowing that behavior modification is not something most people would embrace, Utopian socialists advocated use of “universal ideas of truth and justice” to appeal to the “moral sensibilities” of men. They asserted this is the only way to bring about necessary change to society (Wolff 2017). However, Marx disagreed and distanced himself from utopian thought. He asserted that the way to bring about his vision of “human emancipation” was to study and explain the “historical and social forces” that he believed had shaped the world to this point. Appeal to ‘morality’ was, in his mind, regressive (2017).

With morality unnecessary, justice, as Bentham suggested, was solely the decision of men. Marx either considered communism to be justice, or that the entire concept of justice does not apply because “communism would transcend justice” (Wolff 2017). He described communism as “a society in which each person should contribute according to their ability and receive according to their need” (2017). While some believe this is a theory of justice, it is also possible that Marx is explaining how and why communism transcends justice. If ‘justice’ is nothing more than a method of resolving disputes, then “a society without disputes would have no need or place for justice” (2017). Hume had argued that if society had complete acceptance of all human beings and enough abundance for everyone to have “whatever they wanted without invading another’s share,” then there would be no need for rules of justice. There would be no conflict. Marx had claimed that communism would bring abundance to everyone.

Whether or not world-wide brotherly love and abundantly available material possessions is even possible, the concept put forward was that “communism transcends justice” (Wolff 2017). The sin nature of men, including greed, lust, laziness and selfishness, is ignored because if there is no God, there is no sin-nature. Everything is controllable on a physical level (Fischer, 2013). And therein lies the reason for behavior modification and redistribution of wealth.

Key Ideas of Critical Theory

Originating in Germany in 1931, Critical Theory was a child of its time and birth. Like most other modernists, postmodernists and naturalists, Critical Theorists inherently believe evolution includes a hierarchy of humans. With that, they imagine that if allowed opportunity, society’s best and brightest intellectuals and progressives – by their standards – can “rationally solve all problems” and should govern everyone else (Fischer, 2013).

According to these “German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition,” a ‘critical’ theory is set apart from ‘traditional’ theory to the extent it is a “liberating … influence,” pursuing human “emancipation from slavery,” and functions to “create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). There is a growing number of elite intellectuals who believe critical theory provides descriptive and “normative” grounds for “social inquiry” and is valid science for decreasing domination and increasing freedom” in any form they deem to deconstruct (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]).

By their definition, Critical Theory considers “social facts as problematic situations from the point of view of variously situated agents” (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]). The philosophical approach of Critical Theory “extends to ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of history.” Because they view this as a “normative task,” they believe it “cannot be accomplished apart from the interplay between philosophy and social science through interdisciplinary empirical social research” (2019 [2005]). Because Critical Theory should bring “explanation and revolution” to all “dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies” and “circumstances that enslave human beings,” social inquiry should combine philosophy and the social sciences. Intellectual feel to the sciences needs to be suppressed (2019 [2005]).

So, whereas traditional theory would verify empirically whether a stated fact has occurred or not, Critical Theory considers knowledge to be a fetish that infers “truth and falsehood presupposes an objective structure of the world” (Corradetti 2020)and is “rather functional to ideology critique and social emancipation” (2020). Social criticism, therefore, is true knowledge and the vehicle for social action that transforms reality (2020). In other words, by irrefutable judgement of these scattered theorists, any social standard considered normal and beyond question for the entirety of human history is now a “problematic situation” if any one person views it as such.

Critical Theory addresses all methods in which power is used through words or customs (Fischer, 2013). Using “Bounded and Satisficing Rationality,” a person can reach a “satisfactory solution rather than an optimal one” (English 2016), and “design strategic tools” for making decisions, setting standards and creating environments in which the tools become “ecologically rational” (Gigerenzer 2011).

With this in mind, “…any philosophical approach with similar practical aims could be called a ‘critical theory,’ including feminism, critical race theory, and some forms of post-colonial criticism” (Bohman, Flynn and Celikates 2019 [2005]). Fischer notes Queer Theory and criticism of current prison systems are also included (Fischer, 2013).

Opening the door to allow for every type of human complaint enlarges the size and power of the political movement. However, the more voices in the tent, the more disagreement over policy and criticism of fellow “Critical Theorists.” Dr. William Scheuerman notes some concern that “contemporary critical theory is succumbing to legalist or juridical preoccupations that distort the nature of social reality” (Scheuerman 2016), and Dr. Amy Allen’s primary concern is the Frankfurt School’s critical theory “remains wedded to problematically Eurocentric and/or foundationalist strategies for grounding normativity” (Allen 2015, xii). She wants to “decolonize Frankfurt School critical theory” and open it up “to the aims and concerns of post- and decolonial thought” (2015, xii).

Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, reviewing Dr. Allen’s work, notes her distaste for “robust claims to progress as ahistorical fact,” made by projects that claim to be critical, and “backward-looking conceptions of progress that understand history as a learning process that has led up to ‘us’ (p. 98)” (Vazquez-Arroyo 2018, S227). He comments, “…a different warning goes unheeded. Paraphrasing her formulation, any theory that purports to be critical should be extremely wary of thought forms whose sediments and de-differentiations, along with neo-nativist gestures and inane ideas of decolonization, undermine genuine critique” (2018, S227).

According to Dr. Rasmussen, “the great challenge to critical theory that has to deal with the rise of religion, on the one hand, and globalization, on the other, will be whether or not it can keep a critical perspective alive or whether in the future we will look back at critical theory as just another theory of modernity” (2012).

Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

All three, Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory, profess to be a pathway to Utopia – a society where all laws, government, and social conditions are ideal. Fischer explains that Marxism and socialism are both a derivative of a naturalistic worldview and assume there is only a physical universe, not a spiritual one, and at the same time, free will is an illusion. They believe that our choices are constrained by and are a product of our physical environment. Therefore, social and economic justice are entirely achievable, as they are entirely physical constructs and “can and should be manipulated” (2018).

Critical theory views the universe the same way, as noted by Gigerenzer, who said that ‘unbounded rationality’ is the illusion there is “an ‘omniscient being,’ omnipotent – knows everything – can compute all the consequences…a Laplacian demon, or maybe – God” (Gigerenzer 2011).

All three disciplines view people groups as monolithic. They expect individuals of similar backgrounds to maintain the same views – ignoring individual thought and experience because such things make calculation and projections much more difficult. Anyone who had not reached the same conclusions they had were either lying or deluded.

Dr. Satnam Virdee recalled how in the early twentieth century, England’s Marxist Social Democratic Federation (SDF) “repeatedly emphasized how working-class racism was ‘part of the imperialist rationale to stress the inherent backwardness of African peoples.” and (Virdee 2017). Socialists denied that classism, rather than racism, could be the real problem because they had already decided that racism was the issue. At the same time, in Germany, socialists stressed class was the issue, while the Nazi’s stressed race. German socialists touted that “abolition of class exploitation” would liberate everyone, “including the racially oppressed” (2017). Virdee surmised that “socialist political practice” will have to become more ‘intersectional’ if solidarity between the “ethnically diverse proletariat in the imperialist core” is to be achieved (2017). Further, economic tenets would need to change, as attempts to practice Marxist socialism have “had to reintroduce elements of private ownership in the means of production in order to overcome or prevent manifest bankruptcy” (Hoppe 1988 [2010]).

Impact of Socialism, Marxism and Critical Theory

The reason the United States has been “by and large, richer than Western Europe, and West Germany much richer than East Germany” is a direct result of less socialism” (Hoppe 1988 [2010], 11). The difference between Switzerland and Austria, as well as England in the nineteenth century and England today, is also a reflection of socialism (1988 [2010], 11). It appears socialism has had little success in anything other than stirring up rage within propaganda instilled college students.

In late fifties, many in the United States began to see the separation of law and morals as intellectually misleading and superficial, blinding men “to the true nature of law and its roots in social life.” Others asserted that the separation was corrupting society, bringing disrespect to the law, and giving way to “state tyranny or absolutism” (Hart, 1958). The term “Legal Positivism,” took on a negative context. One of them “was the sin” of Bentham insistence on the separation of “law as it is and law as it ought to be” (1958).

In the sixties, the New Left, a political movement that consisted of anti-war groups, libertarians, democrats, and Marxists, picked up the utopian idea of camouflaging socialism and Marxism in “morality-speak” and campaigned together on issues involving class, race, gender, ideology and culture. In doing this, they brought “revision and diversification” to Marxism (Alexander 2018). In the 21^st century, ‘Prefigurative politics’ is a new buzz word purported to represent “ethos of unity between means and ends,” as the New Left draws from its ‘60’s’ past with anarchist rioting as a means to bring about “revolutionary social transformation” (Gordon 2018). That is an aspect that has had a large impact on American politicians, if not necessarily the general public. In fact, Alexander reports that his Marxist passion waned after realizing the people he was attempting to liberate had no desire to be liberated. Alexander related:

We formed a sociology collective and did our part during street demonstrations, the rousing performances that unfolded inside tear gas clouds. But holding back from the window breaking and systematic “trashing,” we felt increasingly alienated from the hardened members of the revolutionary vanguard. Ground down by its own internal dynamics and hounded by the triumph of backlash politics and Richard Nixon, the new left had come to resemble the old. It became increasingly polluted by Stalinism and sectarianism, by desperate militancy and acts of revolutionary terrorism. Watching this transformation with horror and fear, I looked for a different way to do radical politics, helping to lead more traditional organizing projects. Our sociology collective traveled to Los Angeles to stand beside workers striking the Goodyear Tire plant. We confronted their conservative trade union leadership and produced a wall poster that provided an alternative intellectual framework for their struggle.

We did not find any converts, and the first doubts about the appropriateness of radical criticism began to form in my mind. …For three months we canvassed this working-class community of General Motors employees, seeking to organize them against the Vietnam war, demonstrating the connection between such imperialist violence and capitalism, whose exploitation we believed such workers would be naturally against. But, if only an hour’s drive from Berkeley, Fremont was actually a universe away. The manifest satisfaction of Freemont residents with the American way of life mystified but also deeply impressed me. Was commodification as alienating as the good books had said? Had capitalist culture really brainwashed these workers in a hegemonic way? (Alexander 2018)

The Progressivism in America today is a post-modern version of Marxism. Marxism pitted the rich against the poor. Progressivism pits white males – ostensibly rich white males – against everyone else (Fischer, 2013). In a debate between Trotsky and U.S. socialist C.L.R. James, James recognized the “revolutionary potential of African Americans.” He believed that because of the history of slavery and then Jim Crow, “African Americans were not ‘deceived by democracy,’” and would never support capitalism (Virdee 2017). He was correct concerning some who have black heritage, but not all. In fact, the Marxist socialists are not united in every aspect of their projects. New communists often push the left to pay “increasing attention to feminism, anti-racism and sexual politics” and believe failure to do so nullifies their radicalism and effectiveness. To others, engaging with “non-class forms of politics” is what causes loss to their “radicalism and efficacy” (Dean 2015). Neither camp has yet to come to terms with the possibility that free peoples, when given a choice, reject socialism, let alone communism.

Biblical principles of statesmanship and government

Neither pure capitalism nor socialism were economic systems at the time of Jesus Christ (Blomberg 2012). Nevertheless, historians who study the Biblical economy and patterns of social interaction generally agree that Biblical communities, which measured wealth by the amount of land and number of animals a man owned, operated within the theory of “limited good.” Most people believed wealth was measured and finite, and only a small portion was accessible to persons such as themselves (2012).

While persons of whom the Bible was written may have had some belief similar to that of Marx, Karl Marx and others of his circle had no belief in them. Nineteenth century philosopher Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach claimed that human beings had invented God in their own image and argued that worshipping God “diverted human beings from enjoying their own human powers.” Feuerbach believed this happened to men by innocent “intellectual error.” They merely needed to have truth explained to them for them to pull out of it. Marx appreciated the book but criticized Feuerbach for failing to understand the reason so many fall prey to religion. If one doesn’t understand the genesis of it, one can’t understand the solution. Marx’s view was that “religion is a response to alienation in material life,” and therefore, “cannot be removed” until the person is set financially and materially free. Once that happens, “religion will wither away” (Wolff 2017). In the introduction of his work, ‘Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,’ Karl Marx remarked that religion is the ‘opiate of the people.’ It is in this section that he also discusses the question of “how revolution might be achieved in Germany,” and describes the “role of the proletariat” in making that happen (2017).

Naturalists, socialists, and Marxists do not believe a metaphysical component exists in the world. God and any form of spirituality are myths created to comfort distressed and oppressed “masses” of people. Therefore, they believe all change must come through the physical tools and institutions available to men. It is up to government to guide, teach, sustain and protect people (Fisher 2018).

However, it was witnessed and documented that Jesus rose from the dead. Unexplainable miracles have occurred throughout history and continue to this day, giving direct evidence of a spiritual component to the world. God is personal, intelligent, and the timeless creator. While it is true that injustice exists in the world, Jesus urged his followers to give to the poor, but did not demand government take money from citizens to give to the poor. Helping one’s neighbor is an individual responsibility. “Each of you should give whatever you have decided. You shouldn’t be sorry you gave or feel forced to give, since God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

America’s founding fathers did not want federal government to have the power to demand more money from the public than necessary because they had been abused in that way by the British government (Vaughan 1997). Governments are constituted of men, and men are inherently sinful and selfish. Many seek pleasure and power at the expense of others and even at times take perverse pleasure in it. Tyrants and despots exist.

This is also why justice cannot be arbitrary. There needs to be uncompromising, enduring justice. Bentham assumed people would naturally seek ‘good’ and pleasure over pain, but neither Marx nor Bentham appeared to accept the genuine nature of man and man’s need for intervention from the Holy Spirit (Daniels 2012). Men cannot depend on a government structure. Men can only depend on God. Without Jesus, society devolves. “The social ethic of the secular is so narrow…they give up on trying to defend principal”…“But Christians can’t give up” (2012).

References

Alexander, Jeffrey C. “The Sixties and Me: From Cultural Revolution to Cultural Theory.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 63, no. 234 (Sep-Dec 2018): 99-110. D.

Allen, Amy. The end of progress: Decolonizingthe normative foundations of critical theory. New York: Columbia Uniiversity, 2015.

Blomberg, Craig L. “Neither Capitalism nor Socialism: A Biblical Theology of Economics.” Journal of Markets and Morality 15, no. 1 (Spring 2012): 207-225.

Bohman, James, Jeffrey Flynn, and Robin Celikates. Critical Theory. Winter 2019. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019 [2005].

Corradetti, Claudio. “The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource. 2020. https://iep.utm.edu/frankfur/ (accessed 11 23, 2020).

Daniels, Scott. Presentation: Modern Secular Political Philosophy. Online Presentation, Helms School of Government, Lynchburg: Liberty University, 2012.

Dean, Jonathan. “Radicalism restored? Communism and the end of left melancholia.” Contemporary Political Theory, Aug 2015: 234-255.

English, Angi. “Understanding Bounded Rationality and Satisficing.” Bounded Rationality. Platform by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security . June 3, 2016. https://medium.com/homeland-security/understanding-bounded-rationality-and-satisficing-175e787955d6 (accessed 11 26, 2020).

Fisher, Kahlib. Presentation: Socialism, Marxism, and Critical Theory . Lynchburg: Liberty University, 2018.

Formby, Dan. “[Essay] Why Marxism and Critical Theory Still Matter.” Journal of Critical and Creative Writing, 2015.

Gigerenzer, Gerd. Bounded Rationality. Online presentation, Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin: National Science Foundation, 2011.

Gordon, Uri. “Prefigurative Politics between Ethical Practice and Absent Promise.” Political Studies 66, no. 2 (2018): 521-537.

Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review (The Harvard Law Review Association) 71, no. 4 (1958): 593-629.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988 [2010].

Mises, Ludwig von. Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow. 3rd. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.

Olman, Bertell. “What is Marxism? A Bird’s-Eye View.” Dialectical Marxism. 2004. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/what_is_marxism.php.

Pablo Gilabert, Martin O’Neill. “Socialism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019, Fall, 2019 ed.

Pogge, Thomas, and Michelle Kosch. John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Rasmussen, David M. “Critical Theory.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy (Penn State University Press) 26, no. 2 (2012): 291-298.

Scheuerman, William E. “Recent Frankfurt Critical Theory: Down on Law?” Constellations 24, no. 1 (2016): 113-125.

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Edited by George Grant. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.

Vazquez-Arroyo, Antonio Y. “Review: The end of progress: Decolonizingthe normative foundations of critical theory.” Contemporary Political Theory (Rutgers University), 2018: S224–S227.

Virdee, Satnam. “The second sight of racialised outsiders in the imperialist core.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 11 (2017): 2396-2410.

Wolff, Jonathan. “Karl Marx.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017, Winter 2017 ed.

Ratcliffe’s Letter to Graham re: Clinton ordered, Obama allowed False Russia Accusation against Trump (PDF)

Comments Off

Sep 292020

Chairman Graham Releases Information from DNI Ratcliffe on FBI’s Handling of Crossfire Hurricane

September 29, 2020

READ PDF: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-29-20_Letter to Sen. Graham_Declassification of FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigations_20-00912_U_SIGNED-FINAL.pdf

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today released a letter from Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe. DNI Ratcliffe responded to Graham’s request for intelligence community information regarding the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane.

DNI Ratcliffe provided the following declassified information to the committee:

“In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”
“According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’”
“On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.’”

“I appreciate DNI Ratcliffe responding to my request for any information concerning all things Russia in the 2016 campaign, not just alleged Trump-Russia involvement.

“Director Ratcliffe will make this information available in a classified setting. I will try to review the material as early as today.

“This latest information provided by DNI Ratcliffe shows there may have been a double standard by the FBI regarding allegations against the Clinton campaign and Russia. Whether these allegations are accurate is not the question. The question is did the FBI investigate the allegations against Clinton like they did Trump? If not, why not? If so, what was the scope of the investigation? If none, why was that?

“I look forward to speaking with Director Comey about this latest information, and many other topics, at tomorrow’s hearing.”

READ –

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/chairman-graham-releases-information-from-dni-ratcliffe-on-fbis-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane

List Of U.S. Organizations Funded By George Soros

Comments Off

Sep 282020

September 18, 2020

Organizations directly funded by Soros and his Open Society Foundations (OSF):

Source: DiscoverTheNetworks.org via Dr. Eowyn

Advancement Project: This organization works to organize “communities of color” into politically cohesive units while disseminating its leftist worldviews and values as broadly as possible by way of a sophisticated communications department.
Air America Radio: Now defunct, this was a self-identified “liberal” radio network.
Al-Haq: This NGO produces highly politicized reports, papers, books, and legal analyses regarding alleged Israeli human-rights abuses committed against Palestinians.
All of Us or None: This organization seeks to change voting laws — which vary from state to state — so as to allow ex-inmates, parolees, and even current inmates to cast their ballots in political elections.
Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “extremists.”
America Coming Together: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to coordinate and organize pro-Democrat voter-mobilization programs.
America Votes: Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters.
America’s Voice: This open-borders group seeks to promote “comprehensive” immigration reform that includes a robust agenda in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.
American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy: This organization “opposes laws that require employers and persons providing education, health care, or other social services to verify citizenship or immigration status.”
American Bridge 21st Century: This Super PAC conducts opposition research designed to help Democratic political candidates defeat their Republican foes.
American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board.
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: This Washington, DC-based think tank seeks to move American jurisprudence to the left by recruiting, indoctrinating, and mobilizing young law students, helping them acquire positions of power. It also provides leftist Democrats with a bully pulpit from which to denounce their political adversaries.
American Family Voices: This group creates and coordinates media campaigns charging Republicans with wrongdoing.
American Federation of Teachers: After longtime AFT President Albert Shanker died in in 1997, he was succeeded by Sandra Feldman, who slowly “re-branded” the union, allying it with some of the most powerful left-wing elements of the New Labor Movement. When Feldman died in 2004, Edward McElroy took her place, followed by Randi Weingarten in 2008. All of them kept the union on the leftward course it had adopted in its post-Shanker period.
American Friends Service Committee: This group views the United States as the principal cause of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America’s unilateral disarmament, the dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty, and the repeal of the Patriot Act.
American Immigration Council: This non-profit organization is a prominent member of the open-borders lobby. It advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.
American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.
American Independent News Network: This organization promotes “impact journalism” that advocates progressive change.
American Institute for Social Justice: AISJ’s goal is to produce skilled community organizers who can “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on city services, drug interdiction, crime prevention, housing, public-sector jobs, access to healthcare, and public schools.
American Library Association: This group has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s War on Terror — most particularly, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which it calls “a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users.”
The American Prospect, Inc.: This corporation trains and mentors young leftwing journalists, and organizes strategy meetings for leftist leaders.
Amnesty International: This organization directs a grossly disproportionate share of its criticism for human rights violations at the United States and Israel.
Applied Research Center: Viewing the United States as a nation where “structural racism” is deeply “embedded in the fabric of society,” ARC seeks to “build a fair and equal society” by demanding “concrete change from our most powerful institutions.”
Arab American Institute Foundation: The Arab American Institute denounces the purportedly widespread civil liberties violations directed against Arab Americans in the post-9/11 period, and characterizes Israel as a brutal oppressor of the Palestinian people.
Aspen Institute: This organization promotes radical environmentalism and views America as a nation plagued by deep-seated “structural racism.”
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now: This group conducts voter mobilization drives on behalf of leftist Democrats. These initiatives have been notoriously marred by fraud and corruption.
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center: This organization seeks to advance “a national progressive strategy” by means of ballot measures—state-level legislative proposals that pass successfully through a petition (“initiative”) process and are then voted upon by the public.
Bend The Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice: This organization condemns Voter ID laws as barriers that “make it harder for communities of color, women, first-time voters, the elderly, and the poor to cast their vote.”
Bill of Rights Defense Committee: This group provides a detailed blueprint for activists interested in getting their local towns, cities, and even college campuses to publicly declare their opposition to the Patriot Act, and to designate themselves “Civil Liberties Safe Zones.” The organization also came to the defense of self-described radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in 2005 of providing material support for terrorism.
Black Alliance for Just Immigration: This organization seeks to create a unified movement for “social and economic justice” centered on black racial identity.
Blueprint North Carolina: This group seeks to “influence state policy in North Carolina so that residents of the state benefit from more progressive policies such as better access to health care, higher wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment, and access to reproductive health services.”
Brennan Center for Justice: This think tank/legal activist group generates scholarly studies, mounts media campaigns, files amicus briefs, gives pro bono support to activists, and litigates test cases in pursuit of radical “change.”
Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petitionopposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003.
Campaign for America’s Future: This group supports tax hikes, socialized medicine, and a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs.
Campaign for Better Health Care: This organization favors a single-payer, government-run, universal health care system.
Campaign for Youth Justice: This organization contends that “transferring juveniles to the adult criminal-justice system leads to higher rates of recidivism, puts incarcerated and detained youth at unnecessary risk, has little deterrence value, and does not increase public safety.”
Campus Progress: A project of the Soros-bankrolled Center for American Progress, this group seeks to “strengthen progressive voices on college and university campuses, counter the growing influence of right-wing groups on campus, and empower new generations of progressive leaders.”
Casa de Maryland: This organization aggressively lobbies legislators to vote in favor of policies that promote expanded rights, including amnesty, for illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.
Catalist: This is a for-profit political consultancy that seeks “to help progressive organizations realize measurable increases in civic participation and electoral success by building and operating a robust national voter database of every voting-age American.”
Catholics for Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women’s right to abortion-on-demand.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good: This political nonprofit group is dedicated to generating support from the Catholic community for leftwing candidates, causes, and legislation.
Center for American Progress: This leftist think tank is headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, works closely with Hillary Clinton, and employs numerous former Clinton administration staffers. It is committed to “developing a long-term vision of a progressive America” and “providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals.”
Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist “political issue campaigns.” Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing “attention to major national issues related to poverty,” the Center bases its training programs on the techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.
Center for Constitutional Rights: This pro-Castro organization is a core member of the open borders lobby, has opposed virtually all post-9/11 anti-terrorism measures by the U.S. government, and alleges that American injustice provokes acts of international terrorism.
Center for Economic and Policy Research: This group opposed welfare reform, supports “living wage” laws, rejects tax cuts, and consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes, most notably Venezuela.
Center for International Policy: This organization uses advocacy, policy research, media outreach, and educational initiatives to promote “transparency and accountability” in U.S. foreign policy and global relations. It generally views America as a disruptive, negative force in the world.
Center for Reproductive Rights: CRR’s mission is to guarantee safe, affordable contraception and abortion-on-demand for all women, including adolescents. The organization has filed state and federal lawsuits demanding access to taxpayer-funded abortions (through Medicaid) for low-income women.
Center for Responsible Lending: This organization was a major player in the subprime mortgage crisis. According to Phil Kerpen (vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity), CRL “sh[ook] down and harass[ed] banks into making bad loans to unqualified borrowers.” Moreover, CRL negotiated a contract enabling it to operate as a conduit of high-risk loans to Fannie Mae.
Center for Social Inclusion: This organization seeks to counteract America’s “structural racism” by means of taxpayer-funded policy initiatives.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Reasoning from the premise that tax cuts generally help only the wealthy, this organization advocates greater tax expenditures on social welfare programs for low earners.
Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS): Aiming to redistribute wealth by way of higher taxes imposed on those whose incomes are above average, COWS contends that “it is important that state government be able to harness fair contribution from all parts of society – including corporations and the wealthy.”
Change America Now: Formed in December 2006, Change America Now describes itself as “an independent political organization created to educate citizens on the failed policies of the Republican Congress and to contrast that record of failure with the promise offered by a Democratic agenda.”
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: This group litigates and brings ethics charges against “government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests” and “betray the public trust.” Almost all of its targets are Republicans.
Coalition for an International Criminal Court: This group seeks to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures to those of an international court.
Color Of Change: This organization was founded to combat what it viewed as the systemic racism pervading America generally and conservatism in particular.
Common Cause: This organization aims to bring about campaign-finance reform, pursue media reform resembling the Fairness Doctrine, and cut military budgets in favor of increased social-welfare and environmental spending.
Constitution Project: This organization seeks to challenge the legality of military commissions; end the detainment of “enemy combatants”; condemn government surveillance of terrorists; and limit the President’s executive privileges.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Defenders of Wildlife opposes oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It condemns logging, ranching, mining, and even the use of recreational motorized vehicles as activities that are destructive to the environment.
Democracy Alliance: This self-described “liberal organization” aims to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups. Soros is a major donor to this group.
Democracy 21: This group is a staunch supporter of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.
Democracy Now!: Democracy Now! was created in 1996 by WBAI radio news director Amy Goodman and four partners to provide “perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media,” i.e., the views of radical and foreign journalists, left and labor activists, and ideological foes of capitalism.
Democratic Justice Fund: DJF opposes the Patriot Act and most efforts to restrict or regulate immigration into the United States — particularly from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations.”
Democratic Party: Soros’ funding activities are devoted largely to helping the Democratic Party solidify its power base. In a November 2003 interview, Soros stated that defeating President Bush in 2004 “is the central focus of my life” … “a matter of life and death.” He pledged to raise $75 million to defeat Bush, and personally donated nearly a third of that amount to anti-Bush organizations. “America under Bush,” he said, “is a danger to the world, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”
Demos: This organization lobbies federal and state policymakers to “addres[s] the economic insecurity and inequality that characterize American society today”; promotes “ideas for reducing gaps in wealth, income and political influence”; and favors tax hikes for the wealthy.
Drum Major Institute: This group describes itself as “a non-partisan, non-profit think tank generating the ideas that fuel the progressive movement,” with the ultimate aim of persuading “policymakers and opinion-leaders” to take steps that advance its vision of “social and economic justice.”
Earthjustice: This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses, and the use of motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.
Economic Policy Institute: This organization believes that “government must play an active role in protecting the economically vulnerable, ensuring equal opportunity, and improving the well-being of all Americans.”
Electronic Privacy Information Center: This organization has been a harsh critic of the USA PATRIOT Act and has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in litigating two cases calling for the FBI “to publicly release or account for thousands of pages of information about the government’s use of PATRIOT Act powers.”
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: Co-founded by the revolutionary communist Van Jones, this anti-poverty organization claims that “decades of disinvestment in our cities” — compounded by “excessive, racist policing and over-incarceration” — have “led to despair and homelessness.”
EMILY’s List: This political network raises money for Democratic female political candidates who support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
Energy Action Coalition: Founded in 2004, this group describes itself as “a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement.” For EAC, this means “dismantling oppression” according to its principles of environmental justice.
Equal Justice USA: This group claims that America’s criminal-justice system is plagued by “significant race and class biases,” and thus seeks to promote major reforms.
Fair Immigration Reform Movement: This is the open-borders arm of the Center for Community Change.
Faithful America: This organization promotes the redistribution of wealth, an end to enhanced interrogation procedures vis a vis prisoners-of-war, the enactment of policies to combat global warming, and the creation of a government-run heath care system.
Families USA: This Washington-based health-care advocacy group favors ever-increasing government control of the American healthcare system.
Feminist Majority: Characterizing the United States as an inherently sexist nation, this group focuses on “advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women’s advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists to encourage future leadership for the feminist movement in the United States.”
Four Freedoms Fund: This organization was designed to serve as a conduit through which large foundations could fund state-based open-borders organizations more flexibly and quickly.
Free Exchange on Campus: This organization was created solely to oppose the efforts of one individual, David Horowitz, and his campaign to have universities adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights,” as well as todenounce Horowitz’s 2006 book The Professors. Member organizations of FEC include Campus Progress (a project of the Center for American Progress); the American Association of University Professors; theAmerican Civil Liberties Union; People For the American Way; the United States Student Association; theCenter for Campus Free Speech; the American Library Association; Free Press; and the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups.
Free Press: This “media reform” organization has worked closely with many notable leftists and such organizations as Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, Global Exchange, Code Pink, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Mother Jones magazine, and Pacifica Radio.
Funding Exchange: Dedicated to the concept of philanthropy as a vehicle for social change, this organization pairs leftist donors and foundations with likeminded groups and activists who are dedicated to bringing about their own version of “progressive” change and social justice. Many of these grantees assume that American society is rife with racism, discrimination, exploitation, and inequity and needs to be overhauled via sustained education, activism, and social agitation.
Gamaliel Foundation: Modeling its tactics on those of the radical Sixties activist Saul Alinsky, this group takes a strong stand against current homeland security measures and immigration restrictions.
Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement: This anti-Israel organization seeks to help Palestinians “exercise their right to freedom of movement.”
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: This group contends that when a state proves either unable or unwilling to protect civilians from mass atrocities occurring within its borders, it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene — peacefully if possible, but with military force if necessary.
Global Exchange: Established in 1988 by pro-Castro radical Medea Benjamin, this group consistently condemns America’s foreign policy, business practices, and domestic life. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Global Exchange advised Americans to examine “the root causes of resentment against the United States in the Arab world — from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil to our biased policy towards Israel.”
Grantmakers Without Borders: GWB tends to be very supportive of leftist environmental, anti-war, and civil rights groups. It is also generally hostile to capitalism, which it deems one of the chief “political, economic, and social systems” that give rise to a host of “social ills.”
Green For All: This group was created by Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy, and economic policy initiatives.
Health Care for America Now: This group supports a “single payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.
Human Rights Campaign: The largest “lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender” lobbying group in the United States, HRC supports political candidates and legislation that will advance the LGBT agenda. Historically, HRC has most vigorously championed HIV/AIDS-related legislation, “hate crime” laws, the abrogation of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and the legalization of gay marriage.
Human Rights First: This group supports open borders and the rights of illegal aliens; charges that the Patriot Act severely erodes Americans’ civil liberties; has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of terror suspect Jose Padilla; and deplores the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities.
Human Rights Watch: This group directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at the United States and Israel. It opposes the death penalty in all cases, and supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.
I’lam: This anti-Israel NGO seeks “to develop and empower the Arab media and to give voice to Palestinian issues.”
Immigrant Defense Project: To advance the cause of illegal immigrants, the IDP provides immigration law backup support and counseling to New York defense attorneys and others who represent or assist immigrants in criminal justice and immigration systems, as well as to immigrants themselves.
Immigrant Legal Resource Center: This group claims to have helped gain amnesty for some three million illegal aliens in the U.S., and in the 1980s was part of the sanctuary movement which sought to grant asylum to refugees from the failed Communist states of Central America.
Immigrant Workers Citizenship Project: This open-borders organization advocates mass immigration to the U.S.
Immigration Advocates Network: This alliance of immigrant-rights groups seeks to “increase access to justice for low-income immigrants and strengthen the capacity of organizations serving them.”
Immigration Policy Center: IPC is an advocate of open borders and contends that the massive influx of illegal immigrants into America is due to U.S. government policy, since “the broken immigration system […] spurs unauthorized immigration in the first place.”
Independent Media Center: This Internet-based, news and events bulletin board represents an invariably leftist, anti-capitalist perspective and serves as a mouthpiece for anti-globalization/anti-America themes.
Independent Media Institute: IMI administers the SPIN Project (Strategic Press Information Network), which provides leftist organizations with “accessible and affordable strategic communications consulting, training, coaching, networking opportunities and concrete tools” to help them “achieve their social justice goals.”
Institute for America’s Future: IAF supports socialized medicine, increased government funding for education, and the creation of an infrastructure “to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard.”
Institute for New Economic Thinking: Seeking to create a new worldwide “economic paradigm,” this organization is staffed by numerous individuals who favor government intervention in national economies, and who view capitalism as a flawed system.
Institute for Policy Studies: This think tank has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world. Viewing capitalism as a breeding ground for “unrestrained greed,” IPS seeks to provide a corrective to “unrestrained markets and individualism.” Professing an unquestioning faith in the righteousness of the United Nations, it aims to bring American foreign policy under UN control.
Institute for Public Accuracy: This anti-American, anti-capitalist organization sponsored actor Sean Penn’s celebrated visit to Baghdad in 2002. It also sponsored visits to Iraq by Democratic Congressmen Nick Rahall and former Democrat Senator James Abourezk
Institute for Women’s Policy Research: This group views the U.S. as a nation rife with discrimination against women, and publishes research to draw attention to this alleged state of affairs. It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, stating that “access to abortion is essential to the economic well-being of women and girls.”
International Crisis Group: One of this organization’s leading figures is its Mideast Director, Robert Malley, who was President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs. His analysis of the Mideast conflict is markedly pro-Palestinian.
J Street: This anti-Israel group warns that Israel’s choice to take military action to stop Hamas’ terrorist attacks “will prove counter-productive and only deepen the cycle of violence in the region”
Jewish Funds for Justice: This organization views government intervention and taxpayer funding as crucial components of enlightened social policy. It seeks to redistribute wealth from Jewish donors to low-income communities “to combat the root causes of domestic economic and social injustice.” By JFJ’s reckoning, chief among those root causes are the inherently negative by-products of capitalism – most notably racism and “gross economic inequality.”
Joint Victory Campaign 2004: Founded by George Soros and Harold Ickes, this group was a major fundraising entity for Democrats during the 2004 election cycle. It collected contributions (including large amounts from Soros personally) and disbursed them to two other groups, America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which also worked on behalf of Democrats.
Justice at Stake: This coalition calls for judges to be appointed by nonpartisan, independent commissions in a process known as “merit selection,” rather than elected by the voting public.
LatinoJustice PRLDF: This organization supports bilingual education, the racial gerrymandering of voting districts, and expanded rights for illegal aliens.
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: This group views America as an unremittingly racist nation; uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and academia; has filed briefs against the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to limit the wholesale granting of green cards and to identify potential terrorists; condemns the Patriot Act; and calls on Americans to “recognize the contribution” of illegal aliens.
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: This organization views the United States as a nation rife with racism, sexism, and all manner of social injustice; and it uses legislative advocacy to push for “progressive change” that will create “a more open and just society.”
League of United Latin American Citizens: This group views America as a nation plagued by “an alarming increase in xenophobia and anti-Hispanic sentiment”; favors racial preferences; supports the legalization of illegal Hispanic aliens; opposes military surveillance of U.S. borders; opposes making English America’s official language; favors open borders; and rejects anti-terrorism legislation like the Patriot Act.
League of Women Voters Education Fund: The League supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; supports “motor-voter” registration, which allows anyone with a driver’s license to become a voter, regardless of citizenship status; and supports tax hikes and socialized medicine.
League of Young Voters: This organization seeks to “empowe[r] young people nationwide” to “participate in the democratic process and create progressive political change on the local, state and national level[s].”
Lynne Stewart Defense Committee: IRS records indicate that Soros’s Open Society Institute made a September 2002 grant of $20,000 to this organization. Stewart was the criminal-defense attorney who was later convicted for abetting her client, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, in terrorist activities connected with his Islamic Group.
Machsom Watch: This organization describes itself as “a movement of Israeli women, peace activists from all sectors of Israeli society, who oppose the Israeli occupation and the denial of Palestinians’ rights to move freely in their land.”
MADRE: This international women’s organization deems America the world’s foremost violator of human rights. As such, it seeks to “communicat[e] the real-life impact of U.S. policies on women and families confronting violence, poverty and repression around the world,” and to “demand alternatives to destructive U.S. policies.” It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: This group views the U.S. as a nation replete with racism and discrimination against blacks; seeks to establish an independent black nation in the southeastern United States; and demands reparations for slavery.
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition: This group calls for the expansion of civil rights and liberties for illegal aliens; laments that illegal aliens in America are commonly subjected to “worker exploitation”; supports tuition-assistance programs for illegal aliens attending college; and characterizes the Patriot Act as a “very troubling” assault on civil liberties.
Media Fund: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to conceptualize, produce, and place political ads on television, radio, print, and the Internet.
Media Matters for America: This organization is a “web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center” seeking to “systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation.” The group works closely with the Soros-backed Center for American Progress, and is heavily funded by Democracy Alliance, of which Soros is a major financier.
Mercy Corps: Vis a vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, Mercy Corps places all blame for Palestinian poverty and suffering directly on Israel.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund: This group advocates open borders, free college tuition for illegal aliens, lowered educational standards to accommodate Hispanics, and voting rights for criminals. In MALDEF’s view, supporters of making English the official language of the United States are “motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments,” while advocates of sanctions against employers reliant on illegal labor seek to discriminate against “brown-skinned people.”
Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein, PC: This influential defender of Big Labor is headed by Democrat operativeHarold Ickes.
Midwest Academy: This entity trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, targeting, confrontation, and intimidation.
Migration Policy Institute: This group seeks to create “a North America with gradually disappearing border controls … with permanent migration remaining at moderate levels.”
Military Families Speak Out: This group ascribes the U.S. invasion of Iraq to American imperialism and lust for oil.
Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment: This group is the rebranded Missouri branch of the now-defunct, pro-socialist, community organization ACORN.
MoveOn.org: This Web-based organization supports Democratic political candidates through fundraising, advertising, and get-out-the-vote drives.
Ms. Foundation for Women: This group laments what it views as the widespread and enduring flaws of American society: racism, sexism, homophobia, and the violation of civil rights and liberties. It focuses its philanthropy on groups that promote affirmative action for women, unfettered access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, amnesty for illegal aliens, and big government generally.
Muslim Advocates: Opposed to U.S. counter-terrorism strategies that make use of sting operations and informants, MA characterizes such tactics as forms of “entrapment” that are inherently discriminatory against Muslims.
NARAL Pro-Choice America: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, and works to elect pro-abortion Democrats.
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund: The NAACP supports racial preferences in employment and education, as well as the racial gerrymandering of voting districts. Underpinning its support for race preferences is the fervent belief that white racism in the United States remains an intractable, largely undiminished, phenomenon.
The Nation Institute: This nonprofit entity sponsors leftist conferences, fellowships, awards for radical activists, and journalism internships.
National Abortion Federation: This group opposes any restrictions on abortion at either the state or federal levels, and champions the introduction of unrestricted abortion into developing regions of the world.
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty: This group was established in 1976 as the first “fully staffed national organization exclusively devoted to abolishing capital punishment.”
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: This group depicts the United States as a nation in need of dramatic structural change financed by philanthropic organizations. It overwhelmingly promotes grant-makers and grantees with leftist agendas, while criticizing their conservative counterparts.
National Committee for Voting Integrity: This group opposes “the implementation of proof of citizenship and photo identification requirements for eligible electors in American elections as the means of assuring election integrity.”
National Council for Research on Women: This group supports big government, high taxes, military spending cuts, increased social welfare spending, and the unrestricted right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
National Council of La Raza: This group lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, stricter hate-crime laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens.
National Council of Women’s Organizations: This group views the United States as a nation rife with injustice against girls and women. It advocates high levels of spending for social welfare programs, and supports race and gender preferences for minorities and women in business and academia.
National Immigration Forum: Opposing the enforcement of present immigration laws, this organization urges the American government to “legalize” en masse all illegal aliens currently in the United States who have no criminal records, and to dramatically increase the number of visas available for those wishing to migrate to the U.S. The Forum is particularly committed to opening the borders to unskilled, low-income workers, and immediately making them eligible for welfare and social service programs.
National Immigration Law Center: This group seeks to win unrestricted access to government-funded social welfare programs for illegal aliens.
National Lawyers Guild: This group promotes open borders; seeks to weaken America’s intelligence-gathering agencies; condemns the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties; rejects capitalism as an unviable economic system; has rushed to the defense of convicted terrorists and their abettors; and generally opposes all U.S. foreign policy positions, just as it did during the Cold War when it sided with the Soviets.
National Organization for Women: This group advocates the unfettered right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; seeks to “eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia” from American society; attacks Christianity and traditional religious values; and supports gender-based preferences for women.
National Partnership for Women and Families: This organization supports race- and sex-based preferences in employment and education. It also advocates for the universal “right” of women to undergo taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason.
National Priorities Project: This group supports government-mandated redistribution of wealth — through higher taxes and greater expenditures on social welfare programs. NPP exhorts the government to redirect a significant portion of its military funding toward public education, universal health insurance, environmentalist projects, and welfare programs.
National Public Radio: Founded in 1970 with 90 public radio stations as charter members, NPR is today a loose network of more than 750 U.S. radio stations across the country, many of which are based on college and university campuses. (source)
National Security Archive Fund: This group collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act to a degree that compromises American national security and the safety of intelligence agents.
National Women’s Law Center: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; lobbies against conservative judicial appointees; advocates increased welfare spending to help low-income mothers; and favors higher taxes for the purpose of generating more funds for such government programs as Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, foster care, health care, child-support enforcement, and student loans.
Natural Resources Defense Council: One of the most influential environmentalist lobbying groups in the United States, the Council claims a membership of one million people.
New America Foundation: This organization uses policy papers, media articles, books, and educational events to influence public opinion on such topics as healthcare, environmentalism, energy policy, the Mideast conflict, global governance, and much more.
New Israel Fund: This organization gives support to NGOs that regularly produce reports accusing Israel of human-rights violations and religious persecution.
NewsCorpWatch: A project of Media Matters For America, NewsCorpWatch was established with the help of a $1 million George Soros grant to Media Matters.
Pacifica Foundation: This entity owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and hatred for capitalism.
Palestinian Center for Human Rights: This NGO investigates and documents what it views as Israeli human-rights violations against Palestinians.
Peace and Security Funders Group: This is an association of more than 60 foundations that give money to leftist anti-war and environmentalist causes. Its members tend to depict America as the world’s chief source of international conflict, environmental destruction, and economic inequalities.
Peace Development Fund: In PDF’s calculus, the United States needs a massive overhaul of its social and economic institutions. “Recently,” explains PDF, “we have witnessed the negative effects of neo-liberalism and the globalization of capitalism, the de-industrialization of the U.S. and the growing gap between the rich and poor …”
People for the American Way: This group opposes the Patriot Act, anti-terrorism measures generally, and the allegedly growing influence of the “religious right.”
People Improving Communities Through Organizing: This group uses Alinsky-style organizing tactics to advance the doctrines of the religious left.
Physicians for Human Rights: This group is selectively and disproportionately critical of the United States and Israel in its condemnations of human rights violations.
Physicians for Social Responsibility: This is an anti-U.S.-military organization that also embraces the tenets of radical environmentalism.
Planned Parenthood: This group is the largest abortion provider in the United States and advocates taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
Ploughshares Fund: This public grantmaking foundation opposes America’s development of a missile defense system, and contributes to many organizations that are highly critical of U.S. foreign policies and military ventures.
Prepare New York: This group supported the proposed construction of a Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan – a project known as the Cordoba Initiative, headed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
Presidential Climate Action Project: PCAP’s mission is to create a new 21st-century economy, completely carbon-free and based largely on renewable energy. A key advisor to the organization is the revolutionary communist Van Jones.
Prison Moratorium Project: This initiative was created in 1995 for the express purpose of working for the elimination of all prisons in the United States and the release of all inmates. Reasoning from the premise that incarceration is never an appropriate means of dealing with crime, it deems American society’s inherent inequities the root of all criminal behavior.
Progressive Change Campaign Committee: This organization works “to elect bold progressive candidates to federal office and to help [them] and their campaigns save money, work smarter, and win more often.”
Progressive States Network: PSN’s mission is to “pass progressive legislation in all fifty states by providing coordinated research and strategic advocacy tools to forward-thinking state legislators.”
Project Vote: This is the voter-mobilization arm of the Soros-funded ACORN. A persistent pattern of lawlessness and corruption has followed ACORN/Project Vote activities over the years.
Pro Publica: Claiming that “investigative journalism is at risk,” this group aims to remedy this lacuna in news publishing by “expos[ing] abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.”
Proteus Fund: This foundation directs its philanthropy toward a number of radical leftwing organizations.
Psychologists for Social Responsibility: This anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-military, anti-American organization “uses psychological knowledge and skills to promote peace with social justice at the community, national and international levels.”
Public Citizen Foundation: Public Citizen seeks increased government intervention and litigation against corporations — a practice founded on the notion that American corporations, like the capitalist system of which they are a part, are inherently inclined toward corruption.
Public Justice Center: Viewing America as a nation rife with injustice and discrimination, this organization engages in legislative and policy advocacy to promote “systemic change for the disenfranchised.”
Rebuild and Renew America Now (a.k.a. Unity ’09): Spearheaded by MoveOn.org and overseen by longtime activist Heather Booth, this coalition was formed to facilitate the passage of President Obama’s “historic” $3.5 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010.
Res Publica: Seeking to advance far-left agendas in places all around the world, RP specializes in “E-advocacy,” or web-based movement-building.
Roosevelt Institute: Proceeding from the premise that free-market capitalism is inherently unjust and prone to periodic collapses caused by its own structural flaws, RI currently administers several major projects aimed at reshaping the American economy to more closely resemble a socialist system.
Secretary of State Project: This project was launched in July 2006 as an independent “527” organization devoted to helping Democrats get elected to the office of Secretary of State in selected swing, or battleground, states.
Sentencing Project: Asserting that prison-sentencing patterns are racially discriminatory, this initiative advocates voting rights for felons.
Social Justice Leadership: This organization seeks to transform an allegedly inequitable America into a “just society” by means of “a renewed social-justice movement.”
Shadow Democratic Party: This is an elaborate network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising, and policy iniatives — to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left.
Sojourners: This evangelical Christian ministry preaches radical leftwing politics. During the 1980s it championed Communist revolution in Central America and chastised U.S. policy-makers for their tendency “to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts.” More recently, Sojourners has taken up the cause of environmental activism, opposed welfare reform as a “mean-spirited Republican agenda,” and mounted a defense of affirmative action.
Southern Poverty Law Center: This organization monitors the activities of what it calls “hate groups” in the United States. It exaggerates the prevalence of white racism directed against American minorities.
State Voices: This coalition helps independent local activist groups in 22 states work collaboratively on a year-round basis, so as to maximize the impact of their efforts.
Talking Transition: This was a two-week project launched in early November 2013 to “help shape the transition” to City Hall for the newly elected Democratic mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio.
Think Progress: This Internet blog “pushes back, daily,” by its own account, against its conservative targets, and seeks to transform “progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.”
Thunder Road Group: This political consultancy, in whose creation Soros had a hand, coordinates strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming Together, and America Votes.
Tides Foundation and Tides Center: Tides is a major funder of the radical Left.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group: This is an umbrella organization of student groups that support leftist agendas.
Universal Healthcare Action Network: This organization supports a single-payer health care system controlled by the federal government.
Urban Institute: This research organization favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.
USAction Education Fund: USAction lists its priorities as: “fighting the right wing agenda”; “building grassroots political power”; winning “social, racial and economic justice for all”; supporting a system of taxpayer-funded socialized medicine; reversing “reckless tax cuts for millionaires and corporations” which shield the “wealthy” from paying their “fair share”; advocating for “pro-consumer and environmental regulation of corporate abuse”; “strengthening progressive voices on local, state and national issues”; and working to “register, educate and get out the vote … [to] help progressives get elected at all levels of government.”
Voter Participation Center: This organization seeks to increase voter turnout among unmarried women, “people of color,” and 18-to-29-year-olds — demographics that are heavily pro-Democrat.
Voto Latino: This group seeks to mobilize Latin-Americans to become registered voters and political activists.
We Are America Alliance: This coalition promotes “increased civic participation by immigrants” in the American political process.
Working Families Party: An outgrowth of the socialist New Party, WFP seeks to help push the Democratic Party toward the left.
World Organization Against Torture: This coalition works closely with groups that condemn Israeli security measures against Palestinian terrorism.
YWCA World Office, Switzerland: The YWCA opposes abstinence education; supports universal access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; and opposes school vouchers.

B. Organizations that do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSF, but are funded by one or more organizations that do:

Center for Progressive Leadership: Funded by the Soros-bankrolled Democracy Alliance, this anti-capitalist organization is dedicated to training future leftist political leaders.
John Adams Project:This project of the American Civil Liberties Union was accused of: (a) having hired investigators to photograph CIA officers thought to have been involved in enhanced interrogations of terror suspects detained in Guantanamo, and then (b) showing the photos to the attorneys of those suspects, some of whom were senior al-Qaeda operatives.
Moving Ideas Network (MIN): This coalition of more than 250 leftwing activist groups is a partner organization of the Soros-backed Center for American Progress. MIN was originally a project of the Soros-backed American Prospect and, as such, received indirect funding from the Open Society Institute. In early 2006, The American Prospect relinquished control of the Moving Ideas Network.
New Organizing Institute: Created by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org, this group “trains young, technology-enabled political organizers to work for progressive campaigns and organizations.”
Think Progress: This “project” of the American Progress Action Fund, which is a “sister advocacy organization”of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress and Campus Progress, seeks to transform “progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world.”
Vote for Change: Coordinated by the political action committee of the Soros-funded MoveOn.org, Vote for Change was a group of 41 musicians and bands that performed concerts in several key election “battleground”states during October 2004, to raise money in support of Democrat John Kerry‘s presidential bid.
Working Families Party: Created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left, this front group for the Soros-funded ACORN functions as a political party that promotes ACORN-friendly candidates.

Complete List Of U.S. Organizations Funded By George Soros

George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796

Comments Off

Jul 072020

Overview: War, Crisis, and Transition

Explaining Reluctance to Run
Unity and sectionalism
The Constitution and political parties
Checks and balances and separation of powers
Religion, morality, and education
Credit and government borrowing
Foreign relations and free trade
Address’s intentions
Defense of the Proclamation of Neutrality
Closing thoughts

Explaining Reluctance to Run

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

Unity and sectionalism

“The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

The Constitution and political parties

“To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

“Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.”

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Checks and balances and separation of powers

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”

Religion, morality, and education

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”

Credit and government borrowing

“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.”

Foreign relations and free trade

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it – It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

This Address’s intentions

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

Defense of the Proclamation of Neutrality

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

Closing thoughts

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

(Washington, 1796)

Washington, G. (1796). The Avalon Project. Retrieved September 17, 2015, from Lillian Goldman Law Library: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

May I Speak Freely? The Progressives are Playing us.

Comments Off

Jun 082020

For the past week – I haven’t known what to say. My mind has felt blank.

I grew up in the Twin Cities. As a young adult, I lived in the neighborhoods where all this is happening. I shopped at the first Target that burned.

Most of my family is still in the Twin Cities. Extended family of four different heritages and array of skin tones.

But it isn’t just that. It’s the insanity of everything that is happening – and there is so much to say that I don’t even know where to begin.

There is so much to say – that I am at a loss for what to say, if that makes any sense.

The huge number of lies – the huge number of people believing them. The disregard for genuine truth, rule of law…

Honest debate – genuine arguments – don’t matter in the midst of this. Truth is irrelevant, because too many people no longer care about documented history, the Constitution, let alone God. They want what they want – and they won’t let anyone or anything stand in the way. Rage and hate is the rule right now.

– they won’t even agree on the truth of two distinct genders, for heaven sake…

It isn’t just one single group this is coming from. It is several factions of diverse background working together – all under the umbrella of ‘progressive.” In some cases, the only thing they have in common is a disdain for Jesus Christ, Capitalism, and/or historical America. After the Progressives attain the power they seek, they will get busy destroying each other, much like Hitler destroyed those that had helped him early on.

There is a claim that some right-wing group that no one has ever heard of was instigating some of the riots. I don’t believe it. People who honestly believe in God and rule of law DON’T do that, plain and simple. But I also don’t believe it because no one had ever heard of the blamed group before. I believe it was made up – much like the many other things the extreme left has made up over the last eight years or so.

The demand coming from the Minneapolis city council that they dismantle the police force and replace it with… ? They won’t say what they are replacing it with – but don’t doubt they have already decided. Look at the instigator – former Congressman, now state Attorney General Ellison’s son – who is on the Minneapolis City Council. Look at the number of Muslims now in upper seats of leadership in the Twin Cities. This is now the power voting block in Minnesota.

Of course they have thought deeply about what to replace the police force with. They intend to implement a form of sharia law – only they will start out with just calling it some type of Community ‘something’. They won’t use the word sharia – at least not right away.

But even if it is a peaceful ‘force’ to start with – do not be naive enough to believe any ‘force’ can or will remain perfectly objective and fair for any extended period of time. And if the new ‘force’ isn’t operating 100% within Constitutional Rule of Law, what then? Many of those currently demanding the dismantling of the Minneapolis police force have already made it clear their dislike of ‘white’ Americans.

They’ve played the more foolish Americans so well, the Progressives have even succeeded at getting ‘white’ Americans to profess their disdain for white Americans, and major corporations to grovel at their feet.

This truly is a terrifying, terrible time for America. We are truly on the edge.

If the Progressives can’t win the November election by legal means – they will attempt to do it illegally – and if that doesn’t work, the true fascists that they are, they intend to do it through violence. That much is clear.

This makes it no different than when Hitler’s brown-shirts were intimidating the opposition in the early 1930’s.

The Progressives are evil incarnate – it is everything we have always been warned about.

I am glad my father, who was born in Breslau in 1929, passed away four years ago – so he didn’t have to live through it twice.

God be with us all.

Dear Lord God – please intervene and save us and our nation. We ask this in the Holy Name of Jesus Christ.

Antonin Scalia – On American Exceptionalism

Comments Off

Mar 072020

October 5, 2011

Paragraph Outline:

Antonin Scalia – On American Exceptionalism

I speak to law students, college students and even high school students about the Constitution because I feel we aren’t teaching it very well. I speak to students from the best law schools – people presumably especially interested in the law and I ask how many of you have read the Federalist Papers. Hands will go up – and I say, no, not just number 48 or the big ones, but cover to cover. Never more than about 5%.
- That is very sad. Especially if you are interested in the Constitution. Here is a document that says what the Framers of it thought they were doing. It is such a profound exposition of political science that it is studied in political science courses in Europe. Yet we have raised a generation of Americans that are not familiar with it.. [Just one generation? It is more than that. Even less so the anti-federalist papers, which were responses published at the same time, but even fewer people have heard of those.]
What do you think is the reason America is such a free country? What is it in our Constitution that makes us what we are?
- The answer most would say is Freedom of Speech, Freedom of press, etc from the Bill of Rights.
- But every Banana Republic has a bill of rights. Every “president for life” has a bill of rights. The USSR had a bill of rights that was [written] much better than ours.
- But these are just words on paper… what our Framers would call a “parchment guarantee. Our own Bill of Rights was a type of “after-thought.”
- The point is – that the Soviet’s real constitution – the structure of the entity – did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. When that happens – the game is over.
The real key to the distinctiveness of America is the Structure of our government
- One part of it is the independence of our judiciary.
- Very few countries in the world that have a bicameral legislature. England has a house of Lords, but the House of Lords has very little power. They can make the House of Commons pass a bill a second time. France has a senate: it is honorific. Italy has a senate: it is honorific. Very few countries have two bodies in the legislature that are equally powerful. That is a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know – to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion.
- Very few countries in the world have a separately elected Chief Executive. Sometimes I go to Europe and talk about separation of powers – and I find that all I am really talking about is independence of the judiciary because the Europeans don’t even try to divide the two political powers – the legislature and the Chief Executive. In all the parliamentary countries – the Chief Executive is a creature of the legislature – the ‘Prime’ minister of all the ministers. There is never any disagreement between them (the majority party) and the Prime Minister. When there is a disagreement – the parliament just kicks the Prime Minister out. They have a ‘no confidence vote,’ a new election, and they get a Prime Minister who agrees with the legislature.
The Europeans look at our system and think – “Well – sometimes it passes one house but not the other house, sometimes the other house is in the control of another party, or it passes both and then there is this president who has veto power… and they look at this and say “it is gridlock.”
- And I hear Americans saying this now-a-days – and there is a lot of it going around. They talk about a ‘dysfunctional” government because there is disagreement – and the Framers would have said, “YES! That’s exactly the way we set it up. We WANTED this to be contradicting power.” because the main ill that beset us – as Hamilton said in the federalist, when he talked about a separate senate, he said, “Yes, it seems inconvenient, but in as much as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won’t be so bad.” This was 1787 – he didn’t KNOW what an excess of legislation was.
- So unless Americans can appreciate that – and learn to love the separation of powers – which means learning to love the gridlock – which the Framers believed would be the main protection of minorities – the MAIN protection. If a bill is about to be passed that really comes down hard on some minority, they think it is terribly unfair, it doesn’t take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system.
So Americans should learn to appreciate that – and they should learn to love the gridlock. It is there for a reason – so that the legislation that gets out will be good legislation. [hopefully. It was the hoped purpose, anyway].

Scalia, Antonin. “On American Exceptionalism.” Presentation to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington DC, 2011.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivers a statement concerning ‘American Exceptionalism’ before a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing. Remarks delivered 5 October 2011.

Watch – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd–UO0

American constitutional government will die unless great spiritual awakening occurs, scholar says

Comments Off

Feb 262020

Without a religious awakening, the American system of government will not last much longer, according to a renowned political scientist who is not a Christian.

In an interview with Canadian podcaster and pro-life activist Jonathan Van Maren, Charles Murray, a political scientist and author of Coming Apart — an analysis of the widening economic and social disparities in the United States in the last half-century — said he believed that U.S. constitutional government is “dead as a doornail.”

Absent large-scale spiritual renewal, the U.S. might only exist for a few more decades, he said.

Murray holds the F. A. Hayek Emeritus Chair in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington, D.C.

The political scientist believes that even those who call themselves conservative now believe things that the American Founders would find scandalous. At present, what is happening in the U.S. is undergoing a preview of what a “post-America” may be, he said.

“You cannot have a free society, a society that allows lots of individual autonomy without some outside force that leads people to control the self,” Murray explained.

The U.S. today is just another powerful, rich nation and the “American way of life” is now “meaningless,”…

How Founding Fathers Who Loved the God of Liberty & Their Freedom Built the Freest of Free Nations

Comments Off

Feb 202020

02-16-2020 – Paul Strand, CBN News

PHILADELPHIA – As we celebrate Presidents Day, it’s important to remember the first five commanders-in-chief were also all Founding Fathers of the nation. What you may not know is how crucial The Founders’ faith was in America’s beginning. And much of that beginning took place in Philadelphia.

In locations all around colonial Philadelphia, Founders who knew the God of Liberty fought to form a nation of liberty.

Take a Do-it-Yourself Tour

The Providence Forum has organized a self-guided Faith and Freedom Tour to show you how Christianity and the intense desire for liberty in these locations birthed this freest of free nations.

“Why Philadelphia? Because this was the big city. It was much bigger than the little farm town of New York,” Providence Forum founder Peter Lillback told CBN News. “Philadelphia was also centrally located. It was a big city right in the middle.”

Touring around the sights, Lillback described how Bible beliefs backed each step the Founding Fathers took. Standing near a statue of George Washington, Lillback stated the first president personified this.

‘Follow Jesus Christ to Succeed’

“Washington said we need to follow Christ or we’re never going to succeed as a nation. That’s not a minister. That’s not a right-wing conservative fundamentalist. That’s the father of our country!” Lillback exclaimed.

He offered that it’s significant and apropos that Washington’s statue is located right outside Independence Hall since that’s where the Founders declared the colonies’ freedom and formed the fledgling country’s constitution.

Washington led the army that fought for that freedom, then presided over the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and finally led the nation as its first chief executive. But he was always guided by his faith that he held so dear.

How to be a Happy Nation

Lillback explained of Washington, “He’s the one who said, ‘Unless we imitate the Divine Author of our blessed religion in terms of His charity, humility, and specific temperament of mind, we’ll never be a happy nation.'”

In a world used to rule by monarchs, he almost singlehandedly broke Americans out of the habit of being subjects.

“When he was called on to become king, he refused. Because he said, ‘We’re going to let the people decide,'” Lillback shared.

Followers of Christ the Carpenter Met in Carpenters Hall

But many years before that, leaders from the various colonies gathered for the first time and in Philadelphia in 1774 to figure out how to remove the oppressive grip Britain had wrapped around the colonies’ collective neck.

These colonial leaders were overwhelmingly of the Christian faith, following Jesus Christ, a carpenter. And interestingly enough, where they first met was called Carpenters’ Hall.

They longed to unite against Britain but were divided by deep denominational differences and even regional customs. Like when Massachusetts’ John Adams first encountered Washington, the Virginian.

Some Would Shake Hands, Some Would Bow

“They’re all gathered together. They’ve never been in the same room, they’re meeting each other for the first time. John Adams meets this big tall Virginian, George Washington. And they don’t even know how to shake hands. John Adams comes up to shake his hand and George Washington steps back. Because Virginians don’t shake hands. They give a bow,” Lillback explained.

These men gathering in Carpenters’ Hall were taking the actions that would someday give birth to America. Did it begin in rebellion? In bloodshed? It actually began in that hall with prayer.

Standing in front of Carpenters’ Hall, Lillback stated, “This is where the first prayer for the country happens. But not without a debate. They debated the question could they even pray? Not because they didn’t believe in prayer, but because all the different denominations believed that the others were wrong, and they couldn’t fellowship with them,” Lillback related.

The Spark Plug of the American Revolution said ‘I’m no Bigot’

That’s when one of the fieriest radicals against the British stepped into the breach and bridged the gap.

“This is the great accomplishment of Samuel Adams, called the spark plug of the American Revolution, who said, ‘I’m no bigot. I can pray with any man who loves his God and loves his country’,” Lillback said.

Adams called on this First Continental Congress to invite over local Anglican minister Jacob Duche to come and lead them in prayer. Adams was a Congregationalist. Not all that many years before, his people waged war against England’s Anglicans and even beheaded the British king, head of the Anglican church.

They Prayed in Jesus’ Name

But like Samuel Adams, Jacob Duche rose to the occasion, and soon arrived in Carpenters Hall.

“Leads in prayer and he does it in the name of Jesus Christ,” Lillback shared. “So we can honestly say the United States was begun with a prayer meeting.”

He went on, “I think it’s a beautiful thing to realize that American colonialists found a way to come together, and they did it in the Gospel name of Christ, crossing denominational boundaries.”

What these men accomplished, Lillback characterized as, “The spiritual and political first step of the First Continental Congress of the United States.”

And Lillback said of Adams reaching out across the denominational aisle, “It was at that moment that Sam Adams created the American ecumenical spirit, where, in the public square, we can walk over our denominational boundaries.”

Jefferson Wanted Liberty for the Slaves, Too

As the Revolutionary War began, these rebel leaders soon moved into what would become known as Independence Hall. From there, they sent Thomas Jefferson off to come up with the Declaration of Independence. Working nearby, he put together those famed words about life and liberty but also wrote a whole section against slavery.

For those who believe America was just a bunch of uncaring, hard-hearted plantation owners lording it over slaves they felt they had every right to own, the picture was much more complex.

Lillback said of the Declaration’s author, “Jefferson, although a slave owner, realized that they were making the world over again. He said something unique is happening here. And he said, ‘We need to end slavery.'”

Aided by the likes of John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson finished and submitted the Declaration to his fellow delegates.

88 Changes to the Declaration of Independence

“It went to the Congress. And we’re told that while it was being debated, Jefferson was fuming in the corner. Because there were some 88 changes that were made to his document,” Lillback said, adding that one of those changes was taking out Jefferson’s idea to wipe out slavery.

But others continued the battle. Opponents of slavery pointed out the scripture from Leviticus engraved in the nearby Liberty Bell.

Lillback stated they’d remark, “Doesn’t that old bell say, ‘Proclaim liberty throughout the land to ALL inhabitants thereof?’ And this became the great icon of the abolitionists’ assault against slavery. And they’re the ones who named it the Liberty Bell.”

Accepting All Men are Sinners, All are Depraved

Meanwhile, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall, the Founders accepted the Bible’s saying all men are sinners and in their depravity can’t be trusted.

Lillback recalled, “There’s an amazing story that happens in James Madison’s record of the Constitutional Convention. They’re debating how they should distribute votes. And one of the large states says…

KNOW what the Constitution says concerning the Presidency:

Comments Off

Feb 152020

http://dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

With politicians and talking heads constantly in disagreement concerning the powers and responsibilities of the U.S. President – it is important for voters to know for themselves what the U.S. Constitution actually says concerning the Presidency.

Here is Article II of the U.S. Constitution – followed by the amendments pertaining to the Presidency. Ensure you KNOW what it says – not just what people tell you it says…

Article II of the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1.

“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, [See the 23rd Amendment (XXIII) ] in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. [Procedural change in 1804; See the 12th Amendment (XII) ]

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. [See Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (XIV), as well as the 22nd Amendment (XXII) ].

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. [Superseded by the 25th Amendment in 1967 (XXV) ]

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

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.”

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper [See the 20th Amendment (XX) ]; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4.

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

The above, Article II, U.S. Constitution (United States, 1787), is quoted as written with the addition of notes concerning amendments

Note: A portion of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th Amendment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS that have Affected the Presidency

AMENDMENT XII

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. —]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*The above starred portion was Superseded by Section 3 of the 20th Amendment (XX).

AMENDMENT XIV, Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

AMENDMENT XX

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

AMENDMENT XXII

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

AMENDMENT XXIII

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

AMENDMENT XXIV – Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964, Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

AMENDMENT XXV

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967, altering Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution.

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Find this and more at:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/

To Save America

Comments Off

Jan 242020

To save the America we grew up with and loved

January 24, 2020, by Sharon Ward

America is clearly and deeply divided. The question is, will we ever be united again? Former newsman, Walter Shapiro, wrote in a Dec 27, 2018, Roll Call article, “What America, and not just the Democrats, need most of all in 2020 is a presidential candidate who can begin to heal the nation’s deep wounds.” He opines that a good president will not only give “an inspirational appeal to our better angels as citizens,” but as well have, “that half-forgotten virtue called competence — the ability to understand how government works and to know how to use the levers of power to recover from the wreckage of the Trump years.”

He started out sounding nice but ended with digging the knife again into the wound. Ridiculing again the President chosen and loved by half the nation, Shapiro demonstrates he has no desire to understand half the population. Those of his mind have no idea how – and perhaps no genuine desire to – heal this land.

Several, but not all, of the 2020 presidential contenders have talked about healing the nation. An August 2019 article reported that former Pennsylvania congressman Joe Sestak was “running for president to heal this nation’s soul.” A November 8, 2019 headline announced that Senator Cory Booker “wants to heal nation,” and a July 12, 2019 New Yorker headline touted “Andrew Yang’s Robot Apocalypse Can Heal a Divided Nation.”

Dr James J. Zogby, in a November 12, 2019 article, asked, “Will 2020 elections heal or deepen the divide?” Zogby then claims, “There can be no doubt that, by any measure, Donald Trump has been the most outrageous president in our history…It isn’t just the policies Trump has pursued. It is how he has exacerbated the polarization of our society and coarsened our political discourse.”

What is not fully acknowledged by many on the left is that our society was deeply polarized years before Trump came down the escalator. He is merely supporting and responding to those who elected him – as almost all politicians do. As far as exacerbation is concerned, half of America believes the far-left – which has falsely alleged that President Trump and his supporters are racist, greedy, fascists – is responsible for almost all of the exacerbation and violence that has occurred.

Indeed, there is a strong case to be made that it is not conservatives who are courting fascism. While many progressives have said they consider Christians to be dislikable, controlling people, they, themselves, embrace strict societal controls designed to prevent Christians from living their faith. This is interesting because four centuries ago in what is now the State of Massachusetts, Puritans, who founded the New England governments, were devoted to Jesus Christ but governed in a very strict, controlling manner. According to historian Perry Miller, Puritans “disliked individualism” and believed government should not only “interfere and direct and lead as much as it could, in all aspects of life,” but also “discipline and coerce” when necessary. Liberals in the extremely progressive State of Massachusetts today might not all believe in God, but they, along with other east coast liberals, continue to believe government has a duty to control the masses. Many young liberals, in fact, strongly believe government should prevent free speech, free assembly, and free expressions of Christian religion.

Democrats seem to underestimate how strongly conservatives feel about this – as well as underestimate how strongly conservatives felt about many of President Obama’s policies. As long as the Obama administration was enacting policies that liberal America embraced – they closed their eyes and pretended the rest of America didn’t matter. President Trump, on the other hand, said they do matter.

Zogby admits that President Trump “speaks directly to” conservatives, but then wrongly claims President Trump “has convinced them that he alone understands them and will fight for them.” President Trump didn’t “convince” conservatives of this. Liberals have. One only has to listen to a liberal for minutes to hear the condescending and derogatory remarks. Democrats and their 2020 candidates consistently renounce conservatives as either idiots or racist, sexist, evil white people. If they aren’t doing it overtly, they do it subtly. Zogby himself frames liberals as good and conservatives as bad, describing Democrats as reaching out to “young voters, ‘minorities,’” and “educated professional women,” while Republicans reach out to “the wealthy, of course, and white, ‘born again,’ non-college educated, and rural voters.” He applauds Democrats as having “condemned inequality, promoted diversity and tolerance, and proposed a range of social programs designed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable,” then scorns Republicans – alleging they chant a “mantra” for “smaller government, lower taxes,” and “social issues (from abortion to anti-gay rights) to appeal to their voters.” So much for healing.

The Democrat’s apparent ‘Alinsky’ assumption is that if they ridicule people enough, those people will change. News Flash. Ridicule is only making conservatives angrier and less likely to ‘submit.’ When Obama made his derisive ‘God and guns’ comment and Clinton contemptuously called millions of Americans “Deplorable,” conservatives embraced the terms proudly. Zogby asserts that conservatives have latched onto President Trump as their “last, best hope” and feel attacks on him are a threat to their well-being. This is partially true. President Trump is currently the best, but not last, hope, and attacks on him, while indeed recognized as threats to well-being, will not stop conservatives. Even if successful at unseating the President – the divide will remain, and conservatives will find another brave soul to fight for them. To think otherwise is delusional.

While Zogby advises 2020 contenders to “appeal to their base, while also speaking directly…to the left-behind working class – of all races…recognizing the hurt, acknowledging the frustration, and sharing the anger of the right,” he does not understand that is impossible. His words may appeal to Leftist elites, but conservatives recognize them as inherently and insufferably paternalistic. Sure – share the anger. Then go ahead and do what you were going to do anyway. Democrats, including those who claim to want to heal the country through “unity and civility,” always assume that those they see as inferior will be satisfied with any token they might give. After years of maligning conservatives, there is no reason to believe the 2020 Democrats will suddenly care now.

Zogby admits that “Winning and transforming American politics means adopting a ‘both/and’ instead of an ‘either/or’ approach to politics” and “Ignoring or just trying to get more votes than the ‘other side,’ will only perpetuate the divide.” He also concedes that “lame calls for unity and civility fall flat when people are hurting, frustrated, and mad.” However, his advice to unify the nation “around an agenda that speaks to all Americans across the divide” is naïve, at best. Our nation is not split on minor points of policy, easily compromised. It is split on primary, fundamental beliefs – core to everyone’s identity.

Liberals think conservatives are deplorable? Conservatives think liberals are insane. Attacking God and guns wasn’t bad enough – liberals have gone on to rob Americans not only of who they have been as a society for centuries – but of the very essence of who they are as human beings.

For example, when a Democrat reads that many Americans will never – ever – be comfortable with or accepting of biological men in women’s restrooms, does their stomach turn or lips curl into a sneer? If so, accept that outside of a war that unites Americans in defense of their lives, there is no longer an agenda that will speak to both sides. The left is quick to condemn any man who might have made the slightest perceived offence to a woman – yet is comfortable ignoring the deep perception of privacy and safety many women need in a bathroom – especially those who have been sexually assaulted in the past.

Several issues cannot be compromised. Too many Democrats have said they want to make children who are just days away from birth disposable. The large number who staunchly embrace this agenda will need a transformative experience with God before America will ever be united – because conservatives will not cease condemning the cold-blooded murder of infants.

The left has been attempting to subvert everything Americans have known about life and culture. Democrats demand the right to teach a leftist illusion to the children who have been allowed to live – including that they can be another gender. Children are then confused into believing that not only can they change gender; they can choose from dozens of ‘genders.’ But because nothing is what it seems, they had better not make the mistake of assuming what a person looks like is what that person really is, and heaven forbid they call them by the wrong pronouns – which have multiplied exponentially along with the genders. Liberals have then shamed and even punished children who, confused by all this, state the obvious.

Liberals have told children that God isn’t important and probably doesn’t even exist. They told young girls that it is okay to kill their babies if they want. Then they started infusing this far-left agenda into children’s schoolwork, cartoons, movies and toys.

Claiming that sexually explicit “Pride parades” are family fun and story hour at the library educational, liberals called conservatives uptight and homophobic, and suggested more drugs be legalized so everyone could just get high and relax. President Obama broke the camel’s back when he mandated schools open up bathrooms, locker rooms, and even motel rooms on field trips so children the left had allowed to survive but strived to confuse could more effectively stress and confuse other children. In just ten years, Obama had forced so many changes to our society that many citizens over the age of 40 felt they had lost their own culture. This was no longer “your parent’s America.” Many who were losing their children to the leftist distortions could see this wasn’t going to stop. It was only going to keep getting worse.

All of that – along with the economically destructive policies of the Obama administration – made people grieve for the America they grew up in. This is why the phrase, “Make America Great Again,” spoke to so many.

Unfortunately, Democrats successfully convinced young people that the phrase was all about ‘race.’

It was not about ‘race.’ It also had less to do with the economy than many out-of-touch elites supposed. While everyone wants better cash-flow and those who recognize the President’s economic achievements are very grateful for it, the provoked anger during the Obama administration wasn’t about jobs as much as it is about social issues.

The liberals had gone after the children.

Hands off our children.

This is not a village. You do not get to raise our child.

Conservatives have been pushed too far. As men, women, mothers, fathers and grandparents, they will not allow the far left to destroy their families any longer.

Liberals are enraged at President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies – yet still don’t get that half of America loves President Trump precisely because of his conservative social policies. They want to make it about anything but that.

There can never be a uniting of these two, diametrically opposed worldviews. The divide is irreconcilable. Accept it. No President can heal this nation. Leftists have been clear they intend to extend the craziness further, and conservative have been clear they intend to stop them. Both have been increasingly disgusted by the policies of each other’s successive administrations over the last 30 years.

Nevertheless, don’t worry. It does not need to come to blows and one side does not need to push the other out of the country. We do not need to have a civil war. While we cannot heal the divide, there is a way for this nation to survive.

We must genuinely honor the 10th amendment – just as the Founding Father’s originally envisioned. Unlike genders, we really do have many different states to choose from – 51 if Northern California has its way.

The original colonies were, by their measure, jarringly distinct from each other. Each had its own manner of government and was highly protective of its territory. They had separate histories, specific religions, distinguishable cultures and unique commerce issues. They were often in competition or conflict with one another. Nevertheless, while they wanted to retain their individuality, they desired to form a collective central government for purposes of defense, oversea commerce, national infrastructure, and a small number of other issues best handled in unity. Our nation was created, constitution written – and over the years, civil rights added – under the premise that each state be able to maintain its own policies.

Today, if a state decides to be socialist, so be it – with the understanding that the federal government has no power and the other States are under no obligation to bail it out when it fails. The federal government must finally limit itself to those powers vested by the Constitution and perform only those tasks it was created for. Each State must be free to determine its own internal policies as allowed under the federal constitution – including how long a new resident must wait before receiving state benefits. The president must return to a more limited role as Chief executive. It is only in this way – the way originally established by our founding fathers – that this nation can survive under two disparate world views.

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIVE CHILDREN HOLDS FIRST OFFICIAL MEETING

Comments Off

Dec 292019

The Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children will conduct a comprehensive study of supports for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 27, 2019
CONTACT: Carlyle Begay, asbwsnc@gmail.com

[Washington, D.C., November 2019] – The Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children, established by Congress, held its first official meeting from October 30-November 1, 2019. The bipartisan Commission is the vision of former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who provided opening remarks along with Tara Sweeney, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Comprised of 11 individuals specializing in juvenile justice, social service programs, Indian education, and mental and physical health, the Commission will conduct a comprehensive study of the programs, grants, and supports available for Native children at government agencies and in Native communities. They will then have three years to issue a report containing recommendations to address the challenges currently facing Native children, with the goal of developing a sustainable system that delivers wraparound services to Native children.

Native children (including American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian children) suffer from health and well-being challenges at a much higher rate than their non-Native peers, often experiencing trauma that impacts their ability to learn, thrive, and become resilient adults. Resources and supports for Native children are currently inappropriate, insufficient, or limited by bureaucracy so that they are ineffective. The Commission has a unique and historic opportunity to fundamentally change the trajectory of Native children for the better. In her opening remarks, Senator Murkowski said to the Commissioners, “The Commission can address education issues and childhood trauma in a more holistic way…Sometimes it doesn’t take a lot of money to give a child support, love, and care.” Former Senator Heitkamp added, “I want the Commission to give us hope that things can change and that we can do better. You are the ‘Hope Commission’…Collect and rely on data and research, and lead with your heart; it will take you where you need to go.”

The Commissioners are excited to take on this charge. Gloria O’Neill, Chair of the Commission and President/CEO of the Cook Inlet Tribal Council in Anchorage, Alaska, stated, “We are looking forward to moving the needle on positive outcomes for Native children. We have a great opportunity as there is great alignment in Congress and our partners in the federal government to get things done.”

Over the next couple of years, the Commission will be holding hearings in and reviewing documentation from tribal communities throughout the country to hear from Native children, their families, tribal leaders, and community members. The Commission will also hear from respected researchers and experts as they consider their recommendations. The first public hearing of the Commission will be held in Arizona in March 2020.

The Commissioners of the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children are:

Gloria O’Neill (Chair)
President/CEO, Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc.
Alaska

Tami DeCoteau, Ph.D. (Co-Chair)
DeCoteau Trauma-Informed Care & Practice, PLLC
North Dakota

Carlyle Begay
Former State Senator
Arizona

Dolores Subia BigFoot, Ph.D.
Director, Indian Country Child Trauma Center
Oklahoma

Jesse Delmar
Director, Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety
Arizona

Anita Fineday
Managing Director, Indian Child Welfare Program, Casey Family Programs
Minnesota

Don Atqaqsaq Gray
Board Member, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation
Alaska

Leander R. McDonald, Ph. D.
President, United Tribes Technical College
North Dakota

Elizabeth (Lisa) Morris
Administrator, Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
North Dakota

Melody Staebner
Fargo/West Fargo Indian Education Coordinator
North Dakota
###

The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act

Comments Off

Oct 222019

Freedom to live outside of 'Indian Country' - https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591/

By Elizabeth S. Morris

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Helms School of Government in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in Public Policy

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

‘Although the ICWA has some statutory safeguards to prevent misuse, numerous families continue to be hurt by the law.’

Preface

My husband and I began our lives together in a symbiotic alcoholic-enabler relationship in the late 70’s. With our family on the edge of self-destruction in 1987, my husband, an enrolled member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, born and raised on the Leech Lake reservation, had a transformational experience which changed his worldview and led him to take our family in a new direction.

Having watched many of his relatives suffer within the reservation system, he began to see reservation violence and crime as an outcome of current federal Indian policy more than it was about past policy. This led us to forming an advocacy in the late 90’s for families hurt by federal Indian policy. We did our best to share hope and life, as inadequate as we were, by assisting extended family in our home, neighbors in our community, and strangers across the nation. We never did it for money; there was never any money. Everything we did came from passion for the lives of our children, nieces and nephews, and extended communities.

Unfortunately, reservation crime, corruption, drug abuse and violence have continued to increase over the years. My husband has since passed away and I am a widow, continuing the work we had begun in 1996.

This thesis compiles some of the documented history, philosophy, and consequences of federal Indian policy. It also includes a preliminary quantitative causal comparative survey with 1351 participants – 551 of whom identify tribal heritage – and explores the relationship between differences.

We serve a powerful God with whom all things are possible. Our job is to serve in the capacity He has given us, even if we do not understand why, and then enjoy watching what He does next.

Abstract

This paper will examine the philosophical underpinnings of current federal Indian policy and its physical, emotional, and economic consequences on individuals and communities.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission found in 1990 that “[T]he Government of the United States has failed to provide civil rights protection for Native Americans living on reservations” (W. B. Allen 1990, 2). As Regan (2014) observes, individuals have been denied full title to their property – and thus use of the property as leverage to improve their economic condition (Regan 2014). Tribal executive and judicial branches have been accused of illegal search and seizures, denial of right to counsel or jury, ex parte hearings and violations of due process and equal protection (W. B. Allen 1990, 3). Violence, criminal activity, child abuse and trafficking are rampant on many reservations (DOJ 2018). Largely because of crime and corruption, many have left the reservation system. The last two U.S. censuses’ report 75% of tribal members do not live in Indian Country (US Census Bureau 2010).

Research suggests current federal Indian policy and the reservation system are built on philosophies destructive to the physical, emotional and economic health of individual tribal members. This paper contends that allowing property rights for individual tribal members, enforcing rule of law within reservation systems, supporting law enforcement, and upholding full constitutional rights and protections of all citizens would secure the lives, liberties and properties of affected individuals and families.

Introduction

For almost 200 years the U.S. federal government has claimed wardship over members of federally recognized Indian tribes. Yet, despite the nineteenth century U.S. federal court rulings that propagated this view, disagreement continues as to whether tribes located within the United States are sovereign, whether Congress has plenary power over them, and whether individual tribal members have U.S. Constitutional rights:

Some say the nineteenth century U.S. Supreme Court cases known as the ‘Marshall Trilogy’ contradict tribal sovereignty. Others say they uphold it.
Some say treaties promise a permanent trust relationship. Others point out that most treaties have clearly specified final payments of federal funds and benefits and were written and signed with clear intent for gradual assimilation.
Some say the Constitution never gave Congress anything more than the power to regulate trade with tribes. Others claim the Constitution not only gave Congress total and exclusive plenary power to decide every aspect of life in Indian Country – but by unstated extension, gave the executive branch this power as well.
Some argue that the Constitution never had authority over tribes or tribal members. Others cite the Constitution when seeking judicial redress.
Some tribal officials argue that international law should not have been forced upon non-European cultures that had no say in it. Others point to natural law and international law – the grounds for treaties between nations – as basis for uninterrupted tribal sovereignty.

Inherent, retained tribal sovereignty was reality for tribal governments prior to the formation of the United States and in the immediate years following its birth, but is not reflected in case law from the 1800s and much of the 1900s. By the time of Andrew Jackson, the United States had taken a position of control. Further, over the last two centuries, the vast majority of tribal leaders accepted large payments for land, accepted federal trust benefits, and submitted to federal government’s de facto power over them.

Throughout history and every heritage, various men have coveted power over others. Today, tribal governments, while accepting and playing into Congress’ claim of plenary power, have themselves, also, claimed exclusive jurisdiction and authority over unwilling citizens. Tribal governments regularly lobby and petition both Congress and the White House to codify tribal jurisdiction over the lives, liberty and property of everyone within reservation boundaries as well as some outside reservation boundaries. While claiming exclusive jurisdiction, tribal governments have requested and given blessing for the federal government to manage children of tribal heritage – asking Congress to write the Indian Child Welfare Act and the executive branch to write federal rules governing the placement of every enrollable child in need of care. Some tribal governments and supportive entities have gone further – asking even governors and state legislators to expand on and strengthen control over children with heritage.

Often cited as justification for the ICWA is a 1998 pilot study by Carol Locust, a training director at the Native American Research and Training Center at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. Locust’s study is said to have shown that “every Indian child placed in a non-Indian home for either foster care or adoption is placed at great risk of long-term psychological damage as an adult” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998). Referring to the condition as the “Split-feather Syndrome,” Locust claims to have identified “unique factors of Indian children placed in non-Indian homes that created damaging effects” (Locust, Split Feather Study 1998). The Minnesota Department of Human Services noted “an astonishing 19 out of 20 Native adult adoptees showed signs of “Split-feather syndrome” during Locust’s limited study (DHS 2005).

“Unfortunately,” according to Bonnie Cleaveland, PhD ABPP, “the study was implemented so poorly that we cannot draw conclusions from it.” Only twenty adoptees with tribal heritage – total – were interviewed. All were removed from their biological families and placed with non-native families. There were no control groups to address other variables. According to Cleaveland:

Locust asserts that out-of-culture removal causes substance abuse and psychiatric problems. However, she uses no control group. She doesn’t acknowledge the high rates of trauma, psychiatric and substance abuse among AI/AN people who remain in their culture and among the population of foster children. These high rates of psychosocial problems could easily account for all of the symptoms Locust found in her subjects
(Cleaveland 2015).

Cleaveland concluded, “Sadly, because many judges and attorneys, and even some caseworkers and other professionals, are not familiar with the research, results that may be very wrong are leading to the wrong outcomes for children” (Cleaveland 2015). While supporters of ICWA cite “Split-feather Syndrome” as proof the ICWA is in the best interest of children, many children have been hurt by application of the law.

Questions that need more extensive study include whether children who were adopted into non-Indian families as children show greater problems with self-identity, self-esteem, and inter-personal relationships than do their peers. Are the ties between children who have tribal heritage and their birth families and culture stronger than that of their peers, no matter the age at adoption? Other considerations include whether all tribal members support federal policies that mandate their cases be heard only in tribal courts and whether a percentage of persons of tribal heritage believe federal Indian policy infringes on their life, liberty and property.

The central concern of this paper is how current federal Indian policy has affected the lives, liberty and property of those who have tribal heritage – most specifically the Indian Child Welfare Act. Through research of the historical foundations of federal Indian policy and a nation-wide comparative survey of family dynamics, this paper will attempt to answer these and other questions.

READ FULL TEXT – https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/591

Citation

Morris, Elizabeth S. The Philosophical Underpinnings and Negative Consequences of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Master Thesis, Helms School of Government, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Digital Commons, 2019, 337.

—————————-

References

Aziz G. Sayigh, Boris V. Babson, A.S. Erickson, Charles S. Dameron, Adam I.W. Schwartzman, Nicholas P. Desatnick. “The Storied History of Dartmouth.” The Dartmouth Review, 10 2006.

25 U.S Code. “15 § 1302.” 1968.

Ablavsky, Gregory. “Beyond the Indian Commerce Clause.” Yale Law Journal 124 (2015): 1012, 1017.

Abourezk, James G. THE OCCUPATION OF WOUNDED KNEE, 1973 – American Indian Movement. House of Representatives, Wounded Knee: U.S. Government, 1972.

ACF. Tribal Child Counts. Washington DC: Child Care Bureau, Office of Family Assistance, 2007.

Adoption of Baby Boy L. No. 53,592 (Kansas Supreme Court, April 3, 1982).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. No. 12–399 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2013).

Ahrens, Kym R., Michelle M. Garrison, and Mark E. Courtney. “Health Outcomes in Young Adults From Foster Care and Economically Diverse Backgrounds.” American Academy of Pediatrics, 2014: 10.

AIPRC. American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report, Vol. I. report to provide foundation for understanding of federal Indian policy, law, and history, American Indian Policy Review Commission,, Congress, Washington DC: GPO; Eric.Ed.gov, 1977, 593.

Allen, William B. Commissioner. The Indian Civil Rights Act: United States Commission on Civil Rights Statement. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, U.S. Congress, Washington DC: USCCR, 1990, 16.

Allen, William B. “Email Correspondence.” June 8, 2018.

—. “ICWA Teach-in, Keynote.” Washington DC: CAICW, 10 2010.

Allen, William. Review of Federal Indian Policy. Havre d’ Grace, MD: Unpublished, 2010, 25.

Allison Randall, Chief of Staff. “Baaken violence.” DOJ/Office on Violence Against Women. washington DC: DOJ, 9 13, 2013.

Ambrose, of the St John Indians. “Speech at a Conference Held at Watertown, in the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay July 12, 1776.” Edited by Peter Force. American Archives. Ser.5 v.1 ([1776] 1837–53): 839.

Arkes, Hadley. “The Natural Law Challenge.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc) 36, no. 3 (Summer 2013): 961-975.

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee. Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence: Ending Violence so Children can Thrive. Final Full Report, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Deptartment of Justice, Washington DC: Dept. of Justice, 2014, 257.

Avalon Project. “Treaties Between the United States and Native Americans.” Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp (accessed June 22, 2016).

Banner, Stuart. How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. 2nd. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2007.

Bastiat, Fredrick. The Law. New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, 1998.

Bellamy, Jennifer L., Geetha Gopalan, and Dorian E. Traube. “A National Study of the Impact of Outpatient Mental Health Services for Children in Long Term Foster Care.” Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry (University of Chicago) 15, no. 4 (2010): 467-79.

Bender, Albert. “South Dakota Commits Shocking Genocide Against Native Americans by Abducting Their Children.” ICWA INFO. Edited by Native American Rights Foundation. Native American Rights Foundation. February 20, 2015. http://icwa.narf.org/news/1747 (accessed June 22, 2016).

Benedict, Jeff. Without Reservation. New York: Harper, 2000.

Bernholz, Charles D., Laura K. Weakly, Brian L. Pytlik Zillig, and Karin Dalziel. “As long as grass shall grow and water run: The treaties formed by the Confederate States of America and the tribes in Indian Territory, 1861.” Treaties Portal. Love Memorial Library. n.d. http://treatiesportal.unl.edu/csaindiantreaties/.

BIA. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). 2019. https://www.bia.gov/bia (accessed 4 16, 2019).

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings.” Federal Register, June 14, 2016: 369.

—. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. 9 2, 2016. http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ (accessed Sept 3, 2016).

—. “ICWA Guidelines teleconference.” NWX-DEPT OF INTERIOR-NBC (US). Washington DC: Department of Interior, 2015. 1-114.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act.” US Deptartment of the Interior: Indian Affairs. June 8, 2016. http://www.indianaffairs.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/HumanServices/IndianChildWelfareAct/index.htm (accessed June 8, 2016).

BIA. Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Notice, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, DC: Federal Government, 2003, 68180 -68184 (5 pages).

Bickel, Alexander M. “Citizenship in the American Constitution.” Faculty Scholarship Series, 1973.

Bird, Allyson. Broken Home: The Save Veronica story. News Article, Charleston: Charleston City Paper, 2012.

Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary Free. 2. The Law Dictionary, 2018.

Blackstone, William. Blackstone’s Commentaries. Philadelphia: William Young Birch and Abraham Small, 1803.

Bolick, Clint. “Native American Children: Separate But Equal?” Hoover Institution. Oct 27, 2015. http://www.hoover.org/research/native-american-children-separate-equal (accessed July 27, 2016).

Bordewich, Fergus M. Killing the White Man’s Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1996.

Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States and of the Several States of the American Union. 6. J.B. Lippincott & Company, 1856.

Bowdoin, James. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online – National Archives. Edited by Philander D. Chase. University Press of Virginia. July 30, 1776. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378 (accessed 9 24, 2018).

Brackeen v Zinke. 4:17-cv-00868-O (US District Court, Northern District Of Texas, Fort Worth Division, 10 4, 2018).

Braund, Kathryn. “Summer 1814: The Treaty of Ft. Jackson ends the Creek War.” National Park Service. 8 15, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/articles/treaty-of-fort-jackson.htm (accessed 3 11, 2019).

Brief for Amicus Curiae of Thomas Lee Morris, Elizabeth S. Morris and Roland J. Morris, Supporting Respondent. 03-107 (United States v. Billy Jo Lara, On Writ of Certiorari, December 15, 2003).

Brief of Amicus Curiae Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation in Support of the Respondent. 16-1498 (Supreme Court of the United States, Oct 30, 2018).

Brown, Thomas. “Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill’s Genocide Rhetoric.” Plagiary: Cross‐Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 2006: 100-129.

CAICW. “Administrator.” Letters from Families. Ronan: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 9, 2004.

—. “Administrator.” Growing Crime, Changing Dynamics. Fargo: Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare, June 27, 2014.

—. “Testimony from the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare to the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs: Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation.” CAICW.org. June 24, 2014. http://caicw.org/2014/07/05/testimony-child-protection-and-the-justice-system-on-the-spirit-lake-indian-reservation/#.V2rkfCjR_NM (accessed May 19, 2016).

CAICW. The New ICWA Rules. Public Policy, Fargo: CAICW, 2016.

Cano, Regina Garcia. 2 Malnourished Girls Found on South Dakota Reservation. News, Seattle: Seattle Times, 2016.

CDC. “The Adverse Childhood Experience Study (ACE).” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. US Dept of Health and Human Services. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/index.html (accessed 3 2018).

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2014.

Center for Native American Youth. Fast Facts on Native American Youth and Indian Country. Statistical Facts, Washington DC: Aspen Institute, 2011.

Cherokee Nation. Tribal Citizenship. 2019. https://www.cherokee.org/Services/Tribal-Citizenship (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Cherokee v. Georgia. 30 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court, 12 31, 1831).

Chief Joseph, of the Nez Perce. “The Surrender of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce, Montana Territory.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). October 5, 1877. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4856/the-surrender-of-chief-joseph-of-the-nez-perce-montana-territory-october-5-1877-chief-josephs-own-story/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Chief Seattle. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches. 1 12, 1854.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Determining the Best Interest of the Child.” Child Welfare Information Gateway. HHS/ ACYF/ACF Children’s Bureau. 2016. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/best_interest.pdf (accessed 3 11, 2017).

Churchill, Ward, interview by Joshua Frank. Accusations and Smear: An Interview with Professor Ward Churchill, (Part 1 of 5) (9 19, 2005).

Cleaveland, Bonnie PhD ABPP. Split Feather: An Untested Construct. Scientific Analysis, Charleston: Icwa.co, 2015.

Cohen, Felix S. “Colonialism: A Realistic Approach.” Ethics (The University of Chicago Press) 55, no. 3 (4 1945): 167-181.

—. Handbook of Federal Indian Law. 1942. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, [1942] 1971.

Cohen, Felix S. “Original Indian Title.” Edited by Lucy Kramer Cohen. Minn. L. Rev. (Yale U. Press) 32 (1947): 28.

Congress. “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America.” Journal of the Proceedings of the American Continental Congress, May 1775: 120.

Cross, Suzanne L, Angelique G Day, and Lisa G Byers. “American Indian Grand Families: A Qualitative Study Conducted with Grandmothers and Grandfathers Who Provide Sole Care for Their Grandchildren.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 25, no. 4 (12 2010): 371–383.

CTWS. “Declaration of Sovereignty.” Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Tribe of Oregon. 2016. https://warmsprings-nsn.gov/treaty-documents/declaration-of-sovereignty/ (accessed 4 8, 2019).

Curry, Brett W. “Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism, by Dalia Tsuk Mitchell.” Law and Politics Book Review, Sept 2007: 764-767.

Dawes Commission. Congressional Commission, Washington DC: Congress, 1895.

De Venter, M., K. Demyttenaere, and R. Bruffaerts. “The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and mental health in adulthood. A systematic literature review].” Tijdschr Psychiatry 55, no. 4 (2013): 259-68.

DHHS/IHS. Trends in Indian Health. Statistics, Washington DC: Indian Health Service, 1997.

DHS. ICWA from the Inside Out: ‘Split Feather Syndrome’. Article, Dept of Human Services, State of Minnesota, St. Paul: DHS, 2005.

DOI. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1958.

DOI/BIA. “Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings.” Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 37 /. 2 25, 2015. http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-029447.pdf (accessed March 15, 2015).

DOI-BIA. Indian Population and Labor Force Report. Statistics, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, Washigton DC: Department of Interior, 2003.

DOJ. “Environment and Natural Resources Division.” The United States Department of Justice. 5 24, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/timeline-event/congress-passes-first-indian-trade-and-intercourse-act (accessed 2 10, 2018).

—. “Indian Country Justice Statistics.” Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 4 30, 2018. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=200000 (accessed 8 19, 2018).

—. “Lead up to the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946.” United States Deptartment of Justice. 5 12, 2015. https://www.justice.gov/enrd/lead-indian-claims-commission-act-1946 (accessed 6 1, 2019).

—. “Transcript from the First Hearing of the Advisory Committee of the Attorney General’s Task Force.” American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence. Bismarck: Department of Justice, 2013. 46.

Dudley, Richard G. Jr. MD. “Childhood Trauma and Its Effects: Implications for Police.” Edited by Harvard Kennedy School. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin ( U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice), 2015: 1-22.

Duro v. Reina. 495 U.S. 676 (U.S., 1990).

Eaglewoman, Angelique, and G. William Rice. “American Indian Children and U.S. Indian Policy.” Tribal Law Journal 16 (2016): 1-29.

Enlow, Michelle Bosquet, Emily Blood, and Byron Egeland. “Sociodemographic risk, developmental competence, and PTSD symptoms in young children exposed to interpersonal trauma in early life.” Journal of Traumatic Stress (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies), 2013: 686-694.

Executive Office of the President. Native Youth Report. Policy Brief, Washington DC: The White House, 2014.

FBI. “Indian Country Crime.” FBI.gov. 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/indian-country-crime (accessed July 27, 2016).

Feldon, Gai. Constitutional Government and Free Enterprise. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Pub Co, 2014.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine (National Institutes of Health) 14, no. 4 (5 1998): 245-58.

Fiddler, Mark. “Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl, State ICWA Laws, and Constitutional Avoidance.” Minnesota State Bar Association Family Law Forum (Minnesota State Bar) 22, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 10.

—. “Existing Indian Family Doctrine.” Letter to supporters. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Indian Child Welfare Law Center, 2 21, 2004.

Fineday, Anita. The ICWA Expert Witness and the Role of the Attorney for the Parent. Powerpoint, Casey Family Programs, Seattle: Casey Family Programs, 2012.

Flatten, Mark. Death on a Reservation. Phoenix: Goldwater Institute, 2015.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “Anishinaabe Law and the Round House.” Albany Government Law Review, 2017: 24.

Fletcher, Matthew L.M. “The Iron Cold of the Marshall Trilogy.” N.D. Law Rev (Michigan State University College of Law) 82 (2006): 627.

FOCSE. Tribal & State to Establish & Enforce Child Support. Publication, Washington DC: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement , 2005.

Fort, Kate. Initial Observations on the ICWA Regulations. Blog, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. 2018 ICWA by the Numbers. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2019.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2015. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2016.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2016. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Turtle Talk, 2017.

Fort, Kathryn E. ICWA by the Numbers 2017. Statistics, Indigenous Law and Policy Center, Michigan State University College of Law, Turtle Talk, 2018.

Franson, Janet, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Homicide Investigator (Ret), Founder, Lost and Missing in Indian Country (9 7, 2016).

GAO. Review of American Indian Policy Review Commission. Accounting and Financial Reporting, General Government Division, Congress, Washington DC: General Accounting Office, 1977, 14.

General Congress. “Declaration of Independence.” University of Oklahoma College of Law. July 4, 1776. http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/decind.shtml.

George, Robert P. “Natural Law, the Constitution, and the Theory and Practice of Judicial Review.” Fordham Law Review 69, no. 6 (2001): 2269.

Gerard, Forrest J. Assistant Secretary of Interior. Letter, Department of Interior, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 32.

Goldwater Institute. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PARTS OF INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT. July 7, 2015. http://goldwaterinstitute.org/en/work/topics/constitutional-rights/equal-protection/goldwater-institute-files-class-action-lawsuit-aga/ (accessed June 20, 2016).

Gould, L Scott. “The Congressional Response to Duro v. Reina: Compromising Sovereignty and the Constitution.” Edited by UC Davis Law School. U.C. Davis Law Review 28, no. 1 (1994): 53, 63 69-75.

GWIF. Foster Care Statistics 2016. U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families; Children’s Bureau. 2018. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf#page=1&view=Introduction (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Haas, Theodore H. “Ten Years of Tribal Government Under I.R.A.” DOI.gov. United States Indian Service. 1947. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/library/internet/subject/upload/Haas-TenYears.pdf (accessed 5 2, 2019).

Hagedorn, Nancy L. “”A Friend to go between Them”: The Interpreter as Cultural Broker during Anglo-Iroquois Councils, 1740-70.” Ethnohistory (Duke University Press) 35, no. 1 (1988): 60-80.

Hagen v. Utah. (US Supreme Court, 1994).

Hallie Bongar White, Jane Larrington. “INTERSECTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD VICTIMIZATION IN INDIAN COUNTRY.” Justice.gov. April 21, 2014. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/legacy/2014/04/21/intersection-dv-cpsa.pdf (accessed July 28, 2016).

Harper, Fowler Vincent. “Natural Law in American Constitutional Theory.” Michigan Law Review 26, no. 62 (1927): 62-82.

Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review (The Harvard Law Review Association) 71, no. 4 (1958): 593-629.

Hazard, S., ed. Pennsylvania Archives (1st Series). Vol. 3. Philadelphia, PA: Joseph Severns, 1852.

Herman, Ellen. Adoption Statistics. Department of History, University of Oregon. 2 24, 2012. https://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/topics/adoptionstatistics.htm (accessed 3 29, 2019).

Hintz, James R. “Wilson v. Marchington: The Erosion of TribalCourt Civil Jurisdiction in the Aftermath of Strate v.A-1 Contractors.” Public Land and Resources Law Review, 1999: 145.

Holder, Eric. “Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks During the White House Tribal Nations Conference.” Justice News. Washington DC, 12 3, 2014.

Horwitz, Sara. “The hard lives – and high suicide rate – of Native American children on reservations.” National Security. March 9, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-hard-lives–and-high-suicide-rate–of-native-american-children/2014/03/09/6e0ad9b2-9f03-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html (accessed July 27, 2016).

Hyland, Duane. Running Head: Considering Indian Country. Topic Proposal, Rapid City: NFSH.org, 2014.

ICC. Indian Claims Commission Final Report. Final Commission Report, United States, Washington DC: GPO, 1978.

IHS. Indian Health Service. 2019. https://www.ihs.gov/aboutihs/ (accessed 3 28, 2019).

In re Alexandria Y. G018179 (Fourth Dist., Div. Three, 5 31, 1996).

In re Bridget R. B195282 (Cal. App. 4th, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1483 January 19, 1996).

In re Santos Y. B144822 (Cal. App, 4th, 92 Cal.App.4th 1274 2001).

In re Z.R. and L.R., adoptive parents v . 27-JV-FA-17-117 (MN Court of Appeals, 11 2017).

Indian Country Child Trauma Center. Demographics. Statistical Facts, Oklahoma City: Indian Country Child Trauma Center, 2005.

Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736–1762. Philadelphia, PA: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938.

Jackson, Andrew. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal” .” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990 (National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]) Record Group 46 (Dec. 1830).

Jackson, Jack C. “Director of Government Affairs, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).” National Conference of American Indians. February 12, 1999. http://www.ncai.org/ncai/resource/documents/governance/cvrightcensus.htm (accessed 2007).

James Bell Associates, Inc. “Analysis of Funding Resources and Strategies Among American Indian Tribes.” Administration of Children and Families. March 31, 2004. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/fund_res.pdf (accessed June 22, 2016).

Janney, Samuel M. The Life of William Penn. 2nd. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1852.

Jefferson, Thomas. “To Major John Cartwrigt Monticello, June 5, 1824.” American History: From Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond. Edited by University of Groningen. 1824. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl278.php (accessed June 30, 2016).

Jerry Gardner, Executive Director Tribal. “Tribal Law & Policy Institute.” Santa Monica: ACF, 8 2, 2013.

Johnson v. M’Intosh. 21 U.S. 543; 1823 U.S. 293; 5 L. Ed. 681; 8 Wheat. 543 (U.S., 2 1823).

Jones, B.J. Overview of the Indian Child Welfare Act. 2006. http://www2.mnbar.org/sections/children/history.pdf (accessed April 29, 2007).

Jore, Rick, interview by Elizabeth Morris. Former Montana State Representative (11 15, 2016).

Kaplan, Sarah. “Native American couple sues to let their child be adopted by a white family.” Washington Post. June 10, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/10/native-american-couple-sues-to-let-their-child-be-adopted-by-a-white-family/ (accessed June 21, 2016).

Karnowski, Steve. Feds Say Native Mob Gang Dented but Work Remains. Minneapolis: ABC News, 2013.

Katz, Colleen C, Mark E Courtney, and Elizabeth Novotny. “Pre-foster Care Maltreatment Class as a Predictor of Maltreatment in Foster Care.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 34, no. 1 (2 2017): 35-49.

Kelley, Marylouise (ACF). “Service needs in rural North Dakota and Montana.” Family Violence Prevention and Services Program Director. Washington DC: ACF, 9 23, 2013.

Kelly, John. “38 Years After ICWA, Feds to Collect Data on Native American Foster Youth.” The Chronicle of Social Change, April 8, 2016.

Kennerson, Marilyn (ACF). “Changes at ACF: Our own takes Casey position at ACF/BIA.” Washington DC: ACF, 8 5, 2013.

Kingfisher, Billie J. Jr. Dogma: Felix S. Cohen, The Indian Law Survey and the Spanish Model. Dissertation, Masters of Arts in History, Oklahoma State University, Graduate College, 2016.

Kinney, Adam F. “The Tribe, the Empire, and the Nation: Enforceability of Pre-Revolutionary Treaties with Native American Tribes.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (Case Western Reserve University School of Law) 39, no. 3 (2007-2008): 897.

Krakoff, Sarah. “They Were Here First: American Indian Tribes, Race, and the Constitutional Minimum.” Stanford Law Review 69 (Feb 2017): 491-548.

Kunesh, Patrice H. A Call for an assessment of the Welfare of Indian Children in South Dakota. Article, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS); University of South Dakota, Harvard University, Vermillion: South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 247, 2007.

LaBeau v. Dakota. 2:92-CV-203 (US Federal District Court: West. Dist. Mich., March 17, 1993).

Lawrence, William J. “In Defense of Indian Rights.” Beyond the Color Line; New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America (Hoover Institution Press), 2002: 391-404.

Legal Inf Inst. Wex Legal Dictionary. Ithaca: Cornell Law School, 2019.

LexisNexis. Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law. LexisNexis, 2005.

Locust, Carol. Split Feather Study. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

—. “Split Feathers Study.” American Indian Adoptees. n.d. https://blog.americanindianadoptees.com/p/split-feathers-study-by-carol-locust.html (accessed 2 5, 2018).

—. “Split Feathers: Adult American Indians Who Were Placed In Non-Indian Families As Children.” Native Canadian. n.d. http://nativecanadian.ca/Native_Reflections/split_feather_syndrome.htm (accessed 2 5, 2018).

Locust, Carol. Training Director. Pilot Study, Native American Research and Training Center , University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson: Pathways, 1998.

Lynch, Judy D. “Indian Sovereignty and Judicial Interpretations of the Indian Civil Rights Act.” Washington University Law Review 1979, no. 3,16 (1979): 897.

MacDonald, Peter. “White House Address on the Navajo Code Talkers.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Nov. 27, 2017.

Malone, Tim. The Role of Indian Tribes in our Constitutional System – Two Persistent Problems. Conference, Olympia: Unpublished, 1988.

Margold, Nathan R. “Wheeler-Howard Act–Interpretation” Question 9.” Op. Sol. I.D. Ind. Aff 1917-1974 1 (1934): 484, 490-491.

Marston, Blythe W. “Alaska Native Sovereignty: The Limits of the Tribe-Indian Country Test.” Cornell International Law Journal 17, no. 2 (1984): 33.

Martin, Kenneth. “Thomas Sullivan.” Indian Affairs. Washington DC: Indian Affairs, 11 22, 2013.

Mcmullen, Marrianne (ACF). “Region 8 damaging tribal relations.” Spirit Lake. Washington DC: ACF, 11 1, 2013.

McMullen, Marrianne. “Decision on Proposed Removal.” Memorandum. Washington DC: ACF, 5 6, 2016.

McNeil, Kent. “Sovereignty and Indigenous Peoples in North America.” Articles and Book Chapters (Osgoode Hall Law School of York University) 22, no. 2 (2016): 25.

McWilliams, Paul. “English Common Law: Embodiment of the Natural Law.” The Western Australian Jurist 1 (2010): 128-131.

Means, Russell. “Statement to the Senate Special Committee on Indian Affairs.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Washington DC, Jan. 30, 1989.

Meggitt, Jane. Government Money for Native Americans. Online, Bisfluent, Leaf Group Ltd, 2017.

Meyers, Peter C. “Frederick Douglass’s America: Race, Justice, and the Promise of the Founding.” First Principle Series, Jan 11, 2011, 35 ed.: 18.

Michael R. Tilus, PsyD, MP (HHS Public Health). “Letter of Grave Concern: Spirit Lake Tribal Social Services Grievances.” To Ms. Sue Settle, Chief, Dpt of Human Services, BIA. Devils Lake, North Dakota, March 3, 2012.

Miles v. Family Court for Jud’l Dist of Chinle. (Navajo Nation Supreme Court, Arizona January 2008).

Mission Indian Agency. “The Wheeler-Howard Bill – Questions and Answers.” Bulletin. Riverside, CA, April 16, 1934.

Mississippi Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield . 87-980 (U.S. Supreme Court, April 3, 1989).

Mitchell, Donald Craig. Wampum. New York: The Overlook Press, 2016.

MN Dept Human Serv. “Tribal/State Agreement.” St. Paul, Minnesota: State of Minnesota, Feb 22, 2007. 37.

Montana v. United States. (U.S. Supreme Court, 1981).

Moore, Johnston. “The Misapplication of The Indian Child Welfare Act.” The Chronicle of Social Change. April 1, 2015. https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/child-welfare-2/the-misapplication-of-the-indian-child-welfare-act/10872 (accessed June 21, 2016).

Morandi, Larry. “Tribal Trust Lands: From Litigation to Consultation.” States and Tribes: Building New Traditions, August 2004.

Morris v. Tanner. 160 Fed. Appx. 600 (9th Cir. 2005) (PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, April 2006).

Morris, Elizabeth. Child Abuse within Indian Country. Literature Review, Helm’s School of Gov’t, Liberty University, Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2016.

Morris, Elizabeth. Spirit Lake Town Hall, February 27. Primary, witness, Fort Totten: CAICW, 2013.

Morris, Elizabeth. The Implications of Native American Heritage on U.S. Constitutional Protections. Lynchburg: Unpublished, 2017.

Morris, Roland John. Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. Seattle: Concerning Tribal Jurisdiction, 1998.

Morton v. Mancari. 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. Supreme Court, 6 17, 1974).

MSU. “The French and Indian War.” MSU College of Social Science. Edited by Randall Schaetzl. Dept of Geography, Environment and Spatial Science. 2018. http://www.geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/frenchindian_war.html.

NARA. “Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes (The Dawes Commission), 1893-1914.” National Archoves. June 26, 2017. https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/dawes (accessed 4 26, 2019).

—. “President Jackson’s Message to Congress “On Indian Removal”.” Records of the United States Senate, 1789 ‐ 1990;. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA]. Dec. 6, 1830. (accessed 2018).

Natelson, Rob. “Constitutional Law Professor.” Email Correspondence. 1 22, 2019.

Natelson, Robert G. “The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause.” St. John’s Law Review 80 (2006): 789, 805–06.

Natelson, Robert. “The Original Understanding of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Denver University Law Review 85 (2007): 201.

NAU. “Indigenous Voices of the Colorado Plateau: The Merriam Report of 1928.” Northern Arizona University Library. Northern Arizona University. 2005. http://library.nau.edu/speccoll/exhibits/indigenous_voices/merriam_report.html (accessed 6 14, 2019).

NCAI. Trust Land. 2017. http://www.ncai.org/policy-issues/land-natural-resources/trust-land (accessed 11 17, 2017).

Newell, Terry. Statesmanship, Character, and Leadership in America. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012, 2012.

Nicolai, Shanley Swanson, and Merete Saus. “Acknowledging the Past while Looking to the Future: Conceptualizing Indigenous Child Trauma.” Child Welfare Journal 92, no. 5 (2012): 110.

NICWA. Testimony of Sarah L. Kastelic. Testimony, Washington DC: Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities, 2015, 1-17.

NICWA, SAMHSA. “Native Children: Trauma and Its Effects.” Trauma-Informed Care Fact Sheet. Portland: National Indian Child Welfare Association, April 2014.

NICWA/AAIA. A Guide to the Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. White paper, Washington DC: Nat’l Indian Child Welfare Assoc. & Assoc on American Indian Affairs, 2013, 1-20.

NPS. “Pushmataha.” National Park Service. Sept. 14, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/people/pushmataha.htm.

O’Callaghan, E. B., ed. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons, and Co.,, 1855.

Occom, Samson. “Short, Plain, and Honest Account of my Self.” Edited by Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Bernd Peyer, The Elders Wrote (Dartmouth College Archives), (1768) 1982: 12-18.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States. (United States Supreme Court, 1824).

Otis, D.S. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Indian Lands. Edited by Francis Paul Prucha. University of Oklahoma Press , 1973.

Pommersheim, Frank. “Written testimony in support of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.” (104th Cong. 1st Sess.) 1996: 432.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes.” Montana Law Review 59, no. 1, Article 4 (Winter 1998): 51-80.

Poore, James A. “The Constitution of the United States Applies to Indian Tribes: A Reply to Professor Jensen.” Montana Law Review, 1995/1999: 19.

Prucha, Frances Paul. American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976.

Prygoski, Philip J. “From Marshall to Marshall: The Supreme Court’s changing stance on tribal sovereignty.” GP Solo Magazine, 7 2, 2015.

Publius. “Federalist Papers.” Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman School of Law. 1787. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed01.asp.

Pushmataha. “Response to Chief Tecumseh on War Against the Americans.” American Rhetoric, Online Speech Bank. Mississippi, 1811.

Raab. “Andrew Jackson.” Raab Collection. 10 15, 2019. https://www.raabcollection.com/andrew-jackson-autograph/andrew-jackson-signed-sold-president-andrew-jackson-original-instructions (accessed 3 10, 2019).

Reagan, Ronald. “Statement on Indian Policy, 1983.” The American Presidency Project. Edited by John Woolley, & Gerhard Peters. Univ. of Calif, Santa Barbara. 1 24, 1983. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41665 (accessed 6 30, 2017).

Regan, Shawn. “5 Ways The Government Keeps Native Americans In Poverty.” Forbes. 3 14, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-government-keeps-native-americans-in-poverty/#739501c6cc62 (accessed 12 16, 2016).

Reid v. Covert. 701 (US Supreme Court, 1956).

Reply Brief for the United States. 03-107 (U.S. Supreme Court, Washington DC 2003).

Rice v. Cayetano. 528 U.S. 495 (U.S., 2000).

Robinson Jr, John. “The Binding Guidance Principle: Using the Indian Trust Doctrine to Trump the APA.” American Indian Law Journal 4:1 (2015): 26.

Roe Bubar, Marc Winokur, Winona Bartlemay. Perceptions of Methamphetamine Use in Three Western Tribal Communities: Implications for Child Abuse in Indian Country. Investigative Report, West Hollywood: Tribal Law and Policy Institute, 2007.

Rollings, Willard Hughes. “Citizenship and Suffrage: The Native American Struggle For Civil Rights in the American West, 1830-1965.” Nevada Law Journal 5, no. 126 (Fall 2004): 126-140.

Rolnick, Addie. “The Promise of Mancari: Indian Political Rights as Racial Remedy.” NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) 86 (2011): 102-183.

Roozen, Sylvia, Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters, Gerjo Kok, David Townend, Jan Nijhuis, and Leopold Curfs. “Worldwide Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Literature Review Including Meta-Analysis.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 40, no. 1 (1 2016): 18–32.

Roser, Max. Child Mortality. Statistics, Our World in Data, 2019.

Ruoff, A LaVonne Brown, ed. “Samson Occom (Mohegan) (1723-1792).” n.d.

Russell Means: About. 2014. http://www.russellmeansfreedom.com/about/ (accessed October 5, 2014).

Sampson, Dimitra H. Child and Sexual Abuse in Indian Country. Lecture, Sioux Falls: Dept. of Justice, 2007.

Scheel, Ann Birmingham. Arizona Indian Country Report. Annual Report, Phoenix: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2011.

Schumacher-Matos, Edward. SD: Indian Foster Care 1: NPR Investigative Storytelling Gone Awry. Ombudsman Report, Ombudsman, National Public Radio, New York: National Public Radio, 2013, 80.

Scofield, Ruth Packwood. Behind the Buckskin Curtain. New York: Carlton Press, Inc., 1992.

Seattle, Chief. “Speech Cautioning Americans to Deal Justly with His People.” Civil Rights and Conflict in the United States: Selected Speeches (Lit2Go Edition). January 12, 1854. http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/185/civil-rights-and-conflict-in-the-united-states-selected-speeches/4706/speech-cautioning-americans-to-deal-justly-with-his-people-january-12-1854/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

Skillen v. Menz. 1998 MT 43 (Supreme Court of the State of Montana, March 3, 1998).

Spaith, James. The Native American: At What Level Sovereignty? Draft, Exhibit 1, The White House, U.S. Government, Washington DC: Leonard Garment, Assistant to the President, 1974, 77.

Speed, Nathan. “Examining the Interstate Commerce Clause Through the Lens of the Indian Commerce Clause.” Boston University Law Review, 2007, 87 ed.: 467, 470-71.

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation. 423 (U.S. Supreme Court, May 15, 1899).

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Stuart, Paul. Nations Within a Nation: Historical Statistics of American Indians. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 12th Mandated Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

Sullivan, Thomas F. 13th Mandate Report. Denver: ACF, 2013.

—. “Continual Rape of 13-yr-old Ignored.” To Superiors at the Administration of Children and Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, June 10, 2014.

—. “Criminal Corruption continues at Spirit Lake.” To DC Superiors with the Administration of Children & Families. Denver, Colorado: ACF, May 6, 2014.

—. “Prevented from Testifying.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 7 1, 2014.

—. “Response.” To Ms. McMullen. Denver: ACF, 2 11, 2014.

—. “Sullivan rebukes his DC Superiors for their negligence of children on Indian reservations.” To ACF Superiors in DC. Denver: ACF, April 4, 2014.

—. “Summary of Correspondence.” Denver: ACF, 12 19, 2013.

Talton v. Mayes. 163 U.S. 376, 384 (U.S., 1896).

Texas Dept of Family and Protective Services. Legal Basis for Child Protective Services. Houston, n.d.

The Institute for Government Research. “The Problem of Indian Administration.” Edited by Lewis Meriam. Studies in Administration (The John Hopkins Press), February 1928.

The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. “To George Washington from James Bowdoin, 30 July 1776.” Founders Online, National Archives. 13 June, 2018. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-05-02-0378. (accessed July 30, 2018).

Turanovic, Jillian J, and Travis C Pratt. “Consequences of Violent Victimization for Native American Youth in Early Adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46, no. 6 (6 2017): 1333 – 1350.

Udall, Representative Morris K. “The American Indians and Civil Rights.” Selected Speeches. Washington DC: Arizona University, 10 4, 1965.

United States. “Agreement with the Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, Appendix.” First People. September 20, 1872. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/AgreementWithTheSissetonAndWahpetonBandsOfSiouxIndians1872.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States Commission on Civil Rights. “Enforcement of the Indian Civil Rights Act: U.S. Civil Rights Commission Hearing, Phoenix, AZ.” Washington DC: GPO, September 29, 1988.

United States. “Constitution.” Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute. 1787. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/.

—. “General Allotment Act of 1887.” 24 Stat 388. Washinhgton DC, December 6, 1886.

—. “Indian Child Welfare Act OF 1978.” Vols. Public Law 95-608, 25 USC Chapter 2. Washington DC, 1978.

—. “Indian Civil Rights Act.” Vols. Public Law 90–284, 82 Stat. 73. Washington DC, 1968.

—. “P.L. 68-175: Indian Citizenship Act.” 43 Stat. 253, Ch. 233. Washington DC: GPO, June 2, 1924.

—. “The Dawes Act of 1887.” The Avalon Project – Yale Law School. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dawes.asp (accessed 4 6, 2019).

—. “Transcript of Treaty of Fort Laramie.” OurDocuments.gov. April 29, 1868. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=42&page=transcript (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Cherokee 7 Stat., 311.” Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. II. Compiled by Charles J. Kappler. Washington, 5 6, 1828. 288-292.

—. “Treaty with the Chippewa.” 2 22, 1855.

—. “Treaty with the Omaha.” Treaties. March 16, 1854. http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Treaties/10_Stat_1043_Omaha.htm (accessed May 2, 2019).

—. “Treaty with the Sioux – Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands.” First People. February 19, 1867. https://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/TreatyWithTheSiouxSissetonAndWahpetonBands1867.html (accessed 5 2, 2019).

United States v. Billy Jo Lara. 541 U.S. (U.S. Supreme, 2003).

United States v. Lopez. 93-1260 (U.S.S.C., 4 26, 1995).

United States v. Rogers. 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (U.S. Supreme, March 9, 1846).

United States v. Wheeler,. 76-1629 (US Supreme Court, March 27, 1978).

Univ of Illinois. “Full text of “Monthly catalog of United States Government publications”.” LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSTIY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN. July 1947. http://www.archive.org/stream/monthlycatalogof531947unit2/monthlycatalogof531947unit2_djvu.txt (accessed 11 16, 2016).

Univ. Alaska. Indian Country Statute (1948). 2018. http://tribalmgmt.uaf.edu/tm112/Unit-2/Indian-Country-Statute-1948.

University of Oklahoma. Childhood Trauma Series in Indian Country. Presentation, Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City: Indian Health Service TeleBehavior Health Center, 2013.

US Census Bureau. Nonwhite Population by Race. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Legislative Reference Service, 1960.

US Census Bureau. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population 2010. Statistics, Bureau of the Census, US. Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: US. Dept of Commerce, 2010.

US Census Bureau. Tribal Complete Count Committee Handbook. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC: United States Census 2000, 2001, 4-99.

US Census Bureau. US Census. Statistics, US Census Bureau, Dept of Commerce, Washington DC: Dept of Commerce, 2000.

US Congress. “Congressional Record ICWA.” 95th Cong. 2nd Sess. 124 (1978): 38101-112.

US Congress, House. Concurrent Resolutions, Indian Affairs. House of Respresentatives, Washington DC: GPO, 1953.

—. “Oversight Hearing before the Committee on Resources, US House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs.” Child Protection and the Justice System on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Washington DC: GPO: 113 Cong. 2nd Sess, June 24, 2014.

US Congress. Conference. S. 2981: An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1977, and for other purposes. House Report: Rpt No. 94-1695, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 94th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1976, 4.

US Congress. House. “H.R. 12533 – Indian Child Welfare Act.” Congress.gov. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1978.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. House Report: H. Rept 104-542, Committee on Ways and Means, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. House. H.R. 3828: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendments of 1996. Congressional Report, Natural Resource Committee: Indian Affairs, House, Washington DC: GPO: 104 Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. H.R. 3286: Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996. Senate Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 104TH Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Amendments to the Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 104-574. Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess, June 26, 1996.

—. “Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-845. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 2nd Sess., May 11, 1988.

—. “Hearings before a Subcommittee of The Committee on Indian Affairs United States Senate.” Survey of the Conditions of the Indians of the United States. Washington DC: GPO: 70th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1929.

—. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Program. Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess., April 7.8, 1974.

US Congress. Senate. Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment S. 569. Senate Bill, Indian Affairs Committee, Senate, Washington DC: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., 1997.

—. “Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, US Senate and the Committe on Resources, US House of Representatives.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 105-224. Washington DC: GPO: 105th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1997.

—. “Oversight Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate.” Indian Child Welfare Act: S. Hrg. 100-574. Washington DC: GPO: 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov 10, 1987.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1214: Indian Child Welfare Act. Congressional Report, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong. 1st Sess., 1977.

US Congress. Senate. S. 1962: Indian Child Welfare Act Amendment. Congressional Report, Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate, Washington DC: GPO: 104th Cong. 2nd Sess., 1996.

US Congress. Senate. S. 721 – An Act to authorize appropriations for the Indian Claims Commission for fiscal year 1974, and for other purposes. Senate Report: S.Rept 93-53, Interior and Insular Affairs, Congress, Washington DC: GPO: 93rd Cong. 1st Sess., 1973.

US Congress: House. “Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Aflairs and Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.” Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. S.1214, Serial No. 96-42. Washington DC: GPO: 95th Cong; 2nd Sess., Feb-Mar 9, 1978. 308.

Vattel, Monsieur Emer (Emmerich) de. The Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. 6th American. Translated by Esq. Joseph Chitty. West Brookfield, MA: Merriam and Cooke, [1758,1773] 1844.

Vaughan, David J. Give Me Liberty: The Uncompromising Statesmanship of Patrick Henry. Edited by George Grant. Nashville: Cumberland House Publishing Inc., 1997.

Victoria, Franciscus De. The First Relectio Of The Reverend Father, Brother Franciscus De Victoria, On The Indians Lately Discovered. 1696. Edited by Johann Georg Simon. Translated by John Pawley Bate. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Ingolstadt, Cologne and Frankfort, 1580.

Vieru, Simona. “Aristotle’s Influence on the Natural Law Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas.” The Western Australian Jurist (Murdoch University) 1 (2010): 115-122.

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. “The Treaty of Logg’s Town, 1752.” 1906: 154–174.

Wald, Patricia M. Assistant Attorney General. Letter, Department of Justice, Washington DC: House of Representatives, 1978, 35, 40.

Washington, George. “The Avalon Project: Washington’s Farewell Address.” Lillian Goldman Law Library. Yale Law School. 1796. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp (accessed September 17, 2015).

Weingast, Barry R. “The Economic Role of Political Institutions: Market-Preserving Federalism and Economic Development.” The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1995: 1-31.

White House. “Documents related to the Indian Claims Commission.” Documents 1973-77, Bradley H. Patterson Files, Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, Washington DC, 1973-77, 18.

Wilkinson, Charles. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967.

Wilkinson, Charles F., and John M. Volkman. “Judicial Review of Indian Treaty Abrogation: As Long as Water Flows, or Grass Grows upon the Earth–How Long a Time is That.” California Law Review 63 (5 1975): 601-661.

Wilson, James. “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals.” Founding.com: A Project of the Claremont Institute. 1790-91. http://founding.com/founders-library/american-political-figures/james-wilson/of-the-natural-rights-of-individuals/ (accessed 4 8, 2019).

Woodward, Stephanie. “Suicide is epidemic for American Indian youth: What more can be done?” 100 Reporters. Oct 10, 2012. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14340090-suicide-is-epidemic-for-american-indian-youth-what-more-can-be-done (accessed July 27, 2016).

Worcester v. Georgia. (US Supreme Court, 1832).

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

Comments Off

Oct 142019

By Wallace Henley, CP Exclusive – CP VOICES | Friday, October 11, 2019

Dear President Trump:

Along with millions of people of many faiths I thank you for the bold stand you have taken for religious freedom. The eloquent speech you gave at the United Nations was one of your finest moments—in fact, one of the finest of any president.

I have worked in the White House, and I have written about the presidency since the 1970s, but have never seen nor heard a president of the United States so powerfully defend the right of people to choose what they believe about God and to worship freely.

I also join my voice to the millions so grateful to you for your unrelenting defense of the fundamental right to life of the unborn. Your firm stance against the abortion movement that has escalated to shocking levels is crucial. It is unconscionable that there are those in the industry who are willing to take human life almost at the point of birth.

Christians of many denominations and movements, along with many in other religions are thankful for your leadership in these areas.

Nevertheless, many Christians remain troubled by your careless speech. I want to offer two examples.

READ MORE… https://www.christianpost.com/voice/an-open-letter-to-president-trump.html

2020 Election at Stake: Google Insider and Pysch Expert Warn Tech Giants Could Unfairly Shift Outcome

Comments Off

Aug 242019

CBN News – 08-21-2019 Heather Sells

A top social scientist and now a Google whistleblower both say the tech giant could sway millions of undecided voters and ultimately the election in 2020. Their concern includes Google’s search engine which they say skews results to favor a liberal agenda.

Former Google employee Zachary Vorhies told the investigative organization Project Veritas he has proof that Google actively shuts out conservative and Christian voices.

Vorhies says that while working at Google he found documents showing that it blacklists conservative websites, including Glenn Beck’s and Rush Limbaugh’s as well as Christian websites like the Christian Post and the Catholic News Agency. CBN News apparently was not blacklisted.

The blacklist restricts the websites from appearing on news feeds for an Android Google product.

Vorhies says the documents, as well as internal speeches made by Google executives during his 8 years there, show their motives. “They were intending to sculpt the information landscape so that they could create their own version of what was objectively true,” he said.

Older Entries