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.
Comments Off on The Cult of Advocacy: Comments on the State of Legal Scholarship
Oct312022
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…
Comments Off on My continuing Act of Civil Disobedience and WHY:
Jan212021
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:
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 1st Amendment and two sections of the 14th) 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 14th 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 17th 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 12th 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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.”
Comments Off on May I Speak Freely? The Progressives are Playing us.
Jun082020
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.
Comments Off on Antonin Scalia – On American Exceptionalism
Mar072020
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.
Comments Off on American constitutional government will die unless great spiritual awakening occurs, scholar says
Feb262020
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,”…
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…
Comments Off on KNOW what the Constitution says concerning the Presidency:
Feb152020
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…
“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.
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.
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.
Comments Off on Udall Bill is a Fraudulent Voting Booth ‘Fix’
May282019
A bill recently submitted by Senator Tom Udall and Representative Ben Ray Lujan to the two Judiciary Committees makes it much easier for tribal governments to forge the absentee ballots of tribal members
S. 739 and H.R. 1694 – – ‘’Native American Voting Rights Act of 2019’’
– appears to be in reality the ”Tribal Gov’t Right to Steal Votes of Tribal Members Act.’‘
[ You can find the contact information for your delegation atsenate.gov andhouse.gov. ]
The Reality is, Abuse of Absentee Ballots has Been Occurring for Years. This new bill just makes it easier. The following is one highly documented case that happened as far back as the 1990’s;
Highlights from that federal trial, compiled by Feather Eaglerock (Leech Lake, Sat, 8, Jun 1996) from the June 7, 1996 issue of the Native American Press/Ojibwe News] include –
Excerpts of testimony in the White Earth corruption trial:
— White Earth Reservation officials used funds from a public assistance program with a $1.1 million annual budget to compensate Leech Lake and White Earth members who helped them obtain and certify fraudulent ballots in 1990 and 1994
–indicted White Earth election board chair Carley Jasken also directed the assistance program, but despite the federal charges, Jasken will be responsible for overseeing next Tuesday’s balloting.
–Notary Eleanor Craven testied she and a friend, Connie McKenzie, set up an assembly line system to validate the fraudulent votes, with Craven signing as notary and McKenzie stamping the envelopes with Craven’s notary seal. Together, Craven and Peter Pequette certified at least 168 fraudulent votes, according to White Earth election records
–a secretary to the WE tribal council testified that Carly Jasken and other White Earth election officials joined in shredding a list of voters and stuffing the paper into garbage bags in Sept. 1994. Terri Darco, secretary, said Jasken told her that she didn’t care for Dave Barnes, a federal investigator who had obtained a subpoena to collect election records. “She said. . . when you see your friend Dave Barnes, tell him I have the information he wants, all bagged up.”
–Friends and relatives who have examined available voter lists have identified at least 7 ballots cast in the names of deceased relatives, certified as valid by Pequette and Craven on the afternoon of May 25, 1994.
–other testimony revealed such election practices as obtaining signatures from the impoverished Minneapolis clientele at the Catholic Charities Franklin Avenue branch; votes cast for hospitalized and incapacitated members; and absentee ballots in the names of people who actually voted at the polls or had not voted at all
–as part of his agreement with the government, Pequette consented to plead guilty to state charges of misusing his notary seal. But the state has not taken him up on his offer and he remains a notary public.
–Terry LaDuke, Leech Lake employee, received two payments of $400 each from the White Earth general fund in 1994; testified that is was common practice at both Leech Lake and White Earth to gather ballots to be notarized, with or without the voter’s presence.
–Tom Staples, Leech Lake employee, received checks totaling $2,000 in 1994 for among other things, delivering ballots notarized by Henry Harper to the White Earth Election Board in Mahnomen. Government records show another $600 check cashed at the Shooting Star Casino is his name, but Staples said the signature does not match his.
–in an election appeal in Sept 1994, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe appointed White Earth election board alternate Patricia Keogh and MCT executive director Gray Frazer to review the election, and, despite finding more than 300 invalid ballots, then-chief judge Tammy Stromstad upheld the results.
–questioning Gary Frazer, defense attorneys tried to establish that the BIA and the MCT’s Tribal Executive Committee oversee the elections, “Isn’t it true that the federal government ultimately approves every election of the White Earth Reservation?” Frazer took a long pause before answering that the Bureau does have the authority to intervene. In fact, however, the BIA does not examine election results or monitor the vote, despite more that a decade of complaints of fraud. Similarly, Frazer testified that the TEC does not enforce its election ordinance, leaving the RBCs total control over interpreting the MCT constitution and tribal law. Asked, “How often in your tenure have the members of the tribe been asked to votes on these interpretations?” Without hesitation the MCT administrator answered, ‘none.’
–for six years, Sue Bellefeuille has told anyone who would listen that she personally forged 135 ballots for Rawley in the fall of 1990, at Jasken’s request. Rawley lost a close election to Eugene McArthur, but RBC election judge Richard Tanner ordered a new vote in September. Bellefeuille, then bingo hall manager, testified that Rawley gave her and enrollment book to help verify addresses and birthdates for the votes she cast for relatives Bellefeuille told the Press that she also ran extra bingo games at night to generate unrecorded cash for Rawley’s use
–Clark’s attorney, Peter Mayrand, brought a response from Indian spectators when he asked prosecution witness Eugene McArthur, a White Earth candidate in this year’s election, if he knew anything about the Anishinabe culture. McArthur had previously rebutted the defense argument that voting for relatives was an Anishinabe tradition they referred to as “clan voting”
–Clark’s 82-year-old aunt Stella Oppegard’s testimony brought the biggest reaction from the mostly emotionless councilman. He turned his head away and looked down as she spoke. Oppegard said she was asked by her nephew to be a public notary and later he brought absentee ballots for her to sign. Oppegard was shaking as she entered the witness stand. Sources at White earth say Clark had promised her some money to play bingo. Other notaries who testified say they were offered money in exchange for their services.
–additionally, Wadena and Rawley are accused of accepting bribes of gratuities of $428,682 and $21,500 respectively from Clark to assure that his drywall firm would land a contract to help build the tribe’s Shooting Star Casino in Mahnomen. In questions to witnesses, defense attorneys have suggested that the tribal officials deserved the money because they built a casino that employees about 1,000 people, most of them Indians, on a remote reservation in northwestern Minnesota. They say the officials were operating in the belief that treaties and federal statutes over the years gave the authority to do what they did. Defense lawyers have tried to convince the jury that over-zealous federal investigators singled out Wadena, Rawley and Clark for conduct common among Indian officials.
Complied and published by feather eaglerock, leech lake rez
A few years later, on the Flathead Reservation in Montana, Kicking Horse job corp students reported they were told to sign and hand their absentee ballots over to someone from the tribe to hold for them, not realizing the ballots would be filled out and used in the state and national general election.
[ You can find the contact information for your delegation atsenate.gov andhouse.gov. ]
Highlights of Senator Udall’s 2019 bill, S 739:
(C) certifies that the Indian Tribe will ensure that each such polling place
will be open and available to all eligible voters who reside in the …regardless
of whether such eligible voters are members of the Indian Tribe or of any
other Indian Tribe;
[NOTE:
…or…regardless of whether the person is a non-tribal member???]
(D) requests that the State shall designate election officials and poll
workers … or certifies that the Indian Tribe will designate election
officials and poll workers to staff such polling places on every
day that the polling places will be open.
(e) Mail-In balloting.—In States or political subdivisions that permit
absentee or mail-in balloting, the following shall apply with respect to an
election for Federal office:
(1) All postage shall be prepaid by the Federal
Government and each ballot postmarked the day the ballot is received at
a postal facility located on Indian lands.
(2) An Indian Tribe may designate a Tribal Government
building as a ballot pickup and collection location at no cost to
the Indian Tribe. The applicable State or political subdivision shall collect
ballots from that location.
[NOTE… danger of ballots being intercepted and used.]
(3) The State or political subdivision shall provide mail-in and absentee
ballots to each registered voter residing on Indian lands in the State or
political subdivision without requiring a residential address, a mail-in
or absentee ballot request, or an excuse for a mail-in or absentee ballot.
[I don’t think
I need to note the danger here.]
(4) The address of a designated Tribal Government building that is a
ballot pickup and collection location under paragraph (2) may serve as the
address and mailing address for voters living on Indian lands if the
designated Tribal Government building is in the same precinct as that voter. If
such designated Tribal Government building is not in the same precinct as the
voter, the voter may use the designated Tribal Government building as a mailing
address and may separately designate the voter’s appropriate precinct through a
description of the voter’s address, as specified in section 9428.4(a)(2) of
title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.
[NOTE… danger of ballots being intercepted and used.]
(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to prevent a State or political subdivision from providing additional polling
places on Indian lands if no request was made by an Indian Tribe under
this section.
[NOTE: So…if
a tribe doesn’t ask for all this… a helpful “progressive” state or
county can set it up for them?]
SEC. 7. Tribal preclearance.
(a) Actions requiring preclearance.—No State or political subdivision may
carry out any of the following activities unless the requirements of subsection
(b) have been met:
(4) Eliminating in-person voting on the Indian lands of
an Indian Tribe by designating an Indian reservation as a permanent absentee
voting location, unless—
(A) the entire State is or becomes a
permanent absentee voting State; or
(B) the Indian Tribe requests such a
designation.
[NOTE: Tribal gov’t can ask for total absentee ballots for their entire
membership – and control over everyone’s vote?]
SEC. 8. Tribal voter identification.
(a) Tribal government identification.—If a State or political subdivision
requires an individual to present identification for the purposes of voting or
registering to vote in an election for Federal office, an identification
card issued by a federally recognized Tribal Government, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or any other Tribal or Federal
agency issuing identification cards to Indian voters shall be treated as a
valid form of identification for such purposes.
[NOTE: The
wording doesn’t specify type of card. ie: A state can issue special ID
cards for non-driver’s; could a tribal govt issue cards specifically for
voting?]
(c) Online registration.—If a State or political subdivision
requires an identification card for an individual to register to vote online or
to vote online, that State or political subdivision shall consider an
identification card as described in subsection (a) to be a valid form of
identification for the purpose of registering to vote online or voting online.
——————
PLEASE SHARE THIS with people who will contact their Senators and
Representatives. I will also begin informing people, but will not be able
to do a tremendous amount because of several projects.
[ You can find the contact information for your delegation atsenate.gov andhouse.gov. ]
Comments Off on VOTER FRAUD on White Earth and Leech Lake Reservations, 1990-1994
May242019
CHIPPYGATE: Tribal Government corruption on the Leach Lake and White earth Reservations of Northern Minnesota
EXCERPTS from the Ojibwe News/Native American Press
From the Native American Press: June 7, 1996
Defense overwhelmed by vote fraud evidence in week 4 of Chippygate by Greg Blair
The enrollees came from all over the country, many of them full-blood Indians, while some had blonde hair and blue eyes. However, not one of them hesitated when asked by prosecutors if they were eligible to vote in the White Earth reservation’s elections. “Yes,” was the answer jurors heard from nearly one hundred witnesses who testified this week that they were denied the exercise of this right by the fraudulent practices of Darrell “Chip” Wadena’s gang. Some of the witnesses reported that they had never lived on the reservation or voted in tribal elections. One of the witnesses was a doctor, another was a former Twin Cities radio personality, one was a minister and yet others were successful businessmen and women. Some were raising families, others were retired elders and some were also struggling in poverty.
Many said they had left White Earth as young children or older adults. Others said they had voted on the reservation, but not by absentee ballot. Yet others said they had voted once, but prosecutors showed them two sets of signed ballots for verification. Still others insisted that they had never voted in the reservation’s 1994 general election, but that they had voted in other past White Earth elections.
By day’s end, the federal courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota was resembled a White Earth reunion more than a federal corruption trial. The get-together was even larger than during the reservation’s founder’s day Pow-Wow held in mid-June each year. A common sentiment was expressed by one witness, who said after testifying, “That’s the reason my parents left the reservation, there is too much corruption and I guess it’s still going on.”…..
Leech Lake members, residents played key role in White Earth vote conspiracy By Jeff Armstrong
White Earth Reservation officials used funds from a public assistance program with a $1.1 million annual budget to compensate Leech Lake and White Earth members who helped them obtain and certify fraudulent ballots in 1990 and 1994, according to testimony in the federal conspiracy trial of White Earth’s top officials.
Indicted White Earth election board chair Carley Jasken also directed the assistance program, but despite the federal charges, Jasken will be responsible for overseeing next Tuesday’s balloting.
Eleanor Craven testified that she and fellow Leech Lake member Leo Gotchie, then a district RBC candidate, were campaigning for absentee votes on May 25, 1994, when they stopped at Peter Peqette’s south Minneapolis home. Craven said Gotchie suggested the stop in hopes of obtaining gas money for their return trip by using her notary seal to validate White Earth ballots.
Shortly after their arrival at Pequette’s, Craven testified, Jerry Rawley showed up at the residence with an attache case full of “hundreds” of signed absentee ballots in sealed envelopes. Although the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe’s election ordinance requires absentee voters to sign the “affidavit envelope” in the presence of a notary public – who must then verify that the voter actually cast the enclosed ballot – Craven said she and Pequette proceeded to notarize the invalid ballots.
….Craven said Rawley then collected the votes and handed Gotchie an apparent payment. “He gave something to Mr. Gotchie and he said, “here, take care of your notary,”
….Among the “votes” delivered on May 25, 1994 were those of Cheryl Boswell and her brother Neil. Ms. Boswell, like more than three dozen witnesses in a single day, testified that she never voted in the election and that the ballot envelope in her name was a forgery. Boswell also caused a subdued stir in the courtroom when she told the court that she knew her brother’s vote was false because Neil Boswell had died six months prior to the election.
…An employee of Harper’s at Leech Lake maintenance, Terry LaDuke, received two payments of $400 each from the White Earth general fund in 1994. LaDuke testified that it was a common practice at both Leech Lake and White Earth to gather ballots to be notarized, with or without the voter’s presence.
Money is at the core of court queries By Pat Doyle
The question drew a response that startled some in the courtroom: How much money do you make in a year? When Darwin McArthur, executive director of the White Earth Band of Chippewa, replied that he made $59,000, a tribal member in the spectator section gasped.
By standards of the White Earth Indian Reservation, McArthur’s salary is extraordinary – but not close to the income of his bosses. ……Jurors…listened to testimony of how council members tapped tribal accounts to buy themselves vehicles or to pay their taxes.
“If they tell you to issue a check, that’s what you do?” a prosecutor asked McArthur.
“Yes.” he replied.
In 1993 tribal funds provided $240,122 for Chairman Darrell (Chip) Wadena, $209,507 for council member Rick Clark and $187,237 for Secretary-Treasurer Jerry Rawley.
Prosecutors say those figures include tens of thousands of dollars that the officials embezzled from their tribe by creating gambling and fishing commissions that provided them with checks for work they didn’t do. Additionally, Wadena and Rawley are accused of accepting bribes or gratuities if $428, 682 and $21,500 respectively from Clark to assure that his drywall firm would land a contract to help build the tribe’s Shooting Star Casino in Mahnomen.
….In their questions to witnesses, defense attorneys have suggested that tribal officials deserved the money because they built a casino that employs about 1000 people, most of them Indians, on a remote reservation in northwest Minnesota. Moreover, they say the officials were operating in the belief that treaties and federal statutes over the years gave them the authority to do what they did. And defense lawyers have tried to convince the jury that over-zealous federal investigators singled out Wadena, Rawley and Clark for conduct common among Indian officials.
Whatever its outcome, the trial exposes a tribal government operates without checks and balances, in which council members typically avoid scrutiny by their constituents or non-Indians. Council members made decisions about their pay at meetings they routinely held without notifying White Earth members. McArthur said they did so to avoid opposition.
Bill Lawrence was a Red Lake Band Ojibwe member who grew up in Bemidji. A military vet, attorney and journalist, Lawrence was a watchdog of Minnesota’s tribal governments for more than two decades.
Lawrence founded the Ojibwe News in 1988 in response to tribal government corruption. His work helped federal prosecutors go after tribal leaders and other politicians. He had crusaded to open the books of Minnesota’s 11 Indian casinos and his investigative reporting helped send several tribal leaders to prison in the 1990s. Lawrence passed away with cancer at the age of 70 in 2010.
Comments Off on Open Letter to Senator Heidi Heitkamp
Sep282018
Senator Heitkamp,
As a North Dakota constituent, I am very concerned by your silence during these Senate hearings concerning Judge Kavanaugh. I, along with many North Dakotans, am disturbed by the inappropriate disruptions by protestors and discourteous, insulting behavior of Democratic senators on the committee.
I am wondering how you would feel if you were in honorable Judge Kavanaugh’s position, or how you would feel if the shoe were on the other foot as a committee member having to endure this level of rudeness.
I am wondering why you haven’t made a statement calling for civility and respect. Do Democrats want the developing chasm between Americans to continue to widen? Or do you, Senator Heitkamp, value unity and respectful dialogue?
This is a very important question for me, personally. I will be attending hearings as a member of your Congressional Commission – the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children over the next couple years. Having attended contentious hearings in the past with my husband, I am very aware of the potential for angry, insulting behavior directed at me during these hearings – especially if I ask a question someone might not like. I remember an angry, packed, out-of-control hearing in Billings that frightened even my husband so much that he decided against openly testifying. He handed his written testimony to a staff person and we left. My husband was afraid of being physically hurt at that hearing – and that was in the late 90’s or so when things were a lot more civil than they are today.
I am a human being. I get hurt, I bleed, just like everyone else. Courteous behavior in the public square used to be normal and anticipated. I want to know that manners and civility are not only expected but insisted upon at public hearings of any type, anywhere in this country. I want to know – I NEED to know – that I will be physically SAFE at the meetings I attend.
If you are refusing to stand up for civility and safety at a hearing inside a Congressional building in DC – at the hearing for a Supreme Court Justice no less – how can I expect you to stand up for my safety at hearings across the country? Will you stand up for my safety?
Despite your campaign claim that you value all voices and prioritize standing up “for North Dakotans and making sure that their voices are heard in the halls of Congress” and that you “make it a point to meet with, listen to, and fight for North Dakotans every day” – this is not how I have ever been received by your staff. Despite several attempts to schedule direct meetings with you over the years, I have yet to have even one meeting with you.
In late 2013, I actually felt ridiculed by your DC staff when attempting to meet with an aide.
Watching you sit silently now while Judge Kavanaugh’s children are escorted out of the hearing for their safety – I have no confidence you will be a voice of protection for me, one of your constituents, at the hearings I will be attending as member of your commission.
Senator Heitkamp – please show your mettle and take a stand for what is right. Please show us that you value all voices as you say you do – and make a statement against the out-of-control behavior currently exhibited during the Kavanaugh hearings. Please make it clear that respectful, considerate behavior – including from members of the committees – is expected at any and all government hearings.
It is impossible for our nation to come together and reach any kind of consensus without it.
Elizabeth Sharon (Lisa) Morris
Chairwoman
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare (CAICW)
Comments Off on Hillary: Just the Face of the Deep DNC Corruption
Mar172018
America is fed up with Hillary’s political manipulation and demeaning comments
Support for President Trump is growing now that people see his policies are working. He meant what he said on the campaign trail; it wasn’t just the usual rhetoric we had become used to. But Hillary, apparently feeling angry and entitled, still doesn’t get it. Almost a year and a half after the polls closed, this woman is still convinced that most Americans want her as president – but nefarious forces prevented them from electing her. In her most recent edict, she told an audience in India that most American women – the very group she claims to represent – are under control of men. According to Hillary, most American women will do what they are told when alone in a private voting booth.
While Hillary obviously won California by a landslide – (if all the votes in the LA area were legal) – she still only won 48% of the vote. Most states voted against her. With that LA vote factored in, Trump won 46%. The balance went to 3rd party candidates.
Even with LA factored in and assumed legal – it still means 52% of Americans did NOT vote for Clinton. Therefore, her “Popular Vote” doesn’t make her much more “popular” than Trump. Both garnered votes from citizens who felt they were merely the lesser of two evils. However, with increasing evidence that the DNC, media and FBImanipulated the election, more Americans are relieved Hillary isn’t president.
America is fed up with manipulation and demeaning comments from the DNC, media, and Hollywood as well.
But the distaste for Hillary doesn’t stop with Hillary. Voters are realizing that Hillary Clinton exemplifies the persona of the DNC. She says the belittling things she says because that is the attitude she and her DNC peers have long had. She is the epitome of the upper-class elitism that pervades the Democratic Party, the east coast media, and Hollywood. They truly believe they are better than everyone else.
The coastal elite have been looking down on main street Americans of every heritage and treating them as chattel for years. Many Americans are finally realizing that the policies, values and mores of the left’s upper class have been nurturing and exasperating racism all along. But while it has been rife with racism almost from inception, most of today’s middle and lower-class Democrats never realized that this was what they had been supporting.
STOP IT.
This is not my mother’s Democratic Party. She and her friends were good people who supported policies they believed would benefit everyone. They did not support racism – nor ‘classism,’ nor identity politics of any kind. Further, the corruption that has grown in the DNC over the last thirty years is something most members were unaware of.
SHAME on ALL Democratic officials who continue to support the DNC with its deep corruption, elitist attitude, and destructive policies. Take a genuine stand and denounce all those who have been involved in the fraud – in every branch and agency.
To American voters: Considering all that has been learned over the last year – let your elected officials of both parties know how you honestly feel. Insist they don’t leave a Town Hall without explaining how they will stop corruption in government and the election process.
Comments Off on It Doesn’t Matter, Stormy. We Want Donald Trump.
Mar132018
HEY, non-Christian liberals – give it a rest.
Do you STILL not get it? We KNEW Trump’s history when we hired him. We KNEW he was an ungodly wreck most of his life…that was never a secret! He made billions off the vices of billions – sex, gambling, and alcohol – YES, everyone knew that!
We hired him anyway. Do you STILL not understand why?
We aren’t the least bit disturbed that someone just gave Stormy a ton of money to change her story. You people have been throwing good money after bad, “…doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result…” for almost two years now.
We don’t care about his former sex life.
Did you not see that despite all the faux outrage over that taped conversation with the Bush kid, Trump was elected anyway? Did you NOT notice that while the liberal elite went around the country, destroying the careers of their randy compatriots in vain effort to set a national standard that would oust Trump…much of America gave a collective yawn?
That was because of the utter hypocrisy of the media, political elite and Hollywood – the Madonna’s, Miley’s, and more who make their billions off everything from sexual innuendo, scripted wardrobe malfunctions, prostituting themselves on the casting couch, prancing around half-dressed or nude on the big screen – and for the last couple decades – even portraying their nudity and sexual violence on our home screens. These are the very same fools who are now telling us that we need to let men into women’s bathrooms, shower rooms, school locker rooms, and even girl’s bedrooms if the high school is on an overnight trip.
Now they are feigning piety and wanting us to play along with them.
While we are glad they took down thugs like Weinstein and that anchor from the Hamptons – can’t remember his name – they also caught up several others who simply behaved immature. It was an ill-conceived scheme to somehow draw rage toward Trump, but pretty much only netted other liberal Hollywood, media and political elites.
One has to wonder why there were more liberals caught in that net than conservatives…
At any rate – now you are feigning shock over the potty mouth and the love life of a billionaire casino playboy and wanting us to be shocked as well.
Yeah… you people.
You know so little about your Christian neighbor, that you seriously think this kind of garbage is supposed to send us careening into the streets, smashing windows and demanding impeachment. You think that because we have taken issue with many sexually addicted politicians over the years, including Clinton when he was having sex with varied women on and under White House tables, we would naturally jump on this as well.
But in the situation with Clinton, you told us it didn’t matter – that it was between him and his wife. NOW you want us to care about what Trump did years before he was even president?
Like we said – everyone already knows what he did most of his life. We hired him anyway.
But here is the most important thing you aren’t understanding about Christians. Many of us believe Trump had a ‘come to Jesus’ moment – and is not the same man he was ten years ago.
We don’t deny that Trump has sinned. We absolutely know he has.
This is what you don’t get…you are trying to tell us something we already know.
We already know that “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” That means you, me, our moms, our grandmas, our great aunts that drive 25 mph to church every Sunday, Obama, Trump, Clinton, Ben Carson, Billy Graham – all of us.
Nevertheless, we don’t accept or rationalize sin. We don’t ignore, dismiss, or defend rape. All crime needs to be reported to law enforcement and be dealt with judicially. But we will continue to work with the person if that is what the person sincerely wants us to do – to restore them and help them grow, even if from a prison cell.
We deal with it – because sin has affected all of us. We do what we can, as fallible human beings, to help each other grow away from it. Christians – those who are serious about being disciples of Christ – work to restore fallen brothers and sisters. We listen to each other’s confessions, comfort each other, pray with each other, pick each other up, encourage each other to grow and learn – and all the while doing this, we remember where we ourselves came from. “There but for the Grace of God go I.”
Trump is growing
What many of us know – because we share Christian news reports with each other and gab about it over the kitchen table and such – is that Trump has many strong Christians around him, mentoring him. We know there is frequent prayer in the oval office, weekly Bible studies at the White House, prayer with his cabinet before meetings, and millions of Christians around the country are holding him up to God on a daily basis. We know Vice President Pence and Secretary Ben Carson, among others, are gentlemen of God, who speak with wisdom and grace.
Knowing all this, we know there are good people talking to him prayerfully about sin – including his impulsive reactions.
Some say that Trump’s behavior is a terrible reflection on Jesus Christ. That is true in the eyes of those unfamiliar with the myriad stumbling blocks that can mar a Christian’s growth. It would be nice if President Trump could hurry his walk along a little faster.
Everyone has their own walk, with – or without – God
We hope to see President Trump begin to reflect the Fruits of the Spirit more often as months pass. Everyone is different and no one walks perfectly with the Spirit 100% of the time – in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. [Some versions translate a couple words differently, with ‘meekness and temperance.’] But growth is evident over time in every true disciple of Jesus Christ.
Every single president and presidential candidate over the last few years – including President Obama and both Clintons – said they were Christians. Most people took that at face value. Some say, “well, it was easier to believe previous presidents were Christian, because they were much nicer than Trump. They not only played the role of elegant, articulate leaders – remaining quiet at all the right times – but were better reflections of the way a Christian ‘should be.”
However, as many Americans see it – Obama may have been out there saying all the seemingly right things, but was dishonest and manipulative behind closed doors. There is increasing evidence that he ignored Russian activity in America, advocated for the destruction of Israel, and gave money and relief to our enemies – even allowing five dangerous men to leave Gitmo under the faux excuse of rescuing a deserter.
He may have even purposely supported ISIS by not going after them as he should have. It took less than a year for Trump to route ISIS. Obama could have done that a lot easier and a lot earlier when ISIS was smaller. Yet…he didn’t.
Further, as many Evangelicals see it, Obama may have been a smooth speaker, but was extremely unchristlike in the depth of his terrifying support for the murder of helpless infants as well as destruction of the very building blocks of our society. From common sense laws, community relationships and historical facts, to the core understanding of our souls – our heritage, our God…even causing our small children to question their gender (of all things) and to hate the ‘race’ they were born into. We were no longer allowed to hold firm the very nucleus of who we personally were.
Some of us call that ‘evil.’
Trump is working to repair things Obama destroyed.
We stand with Trump now because he stands for policies that are the exact opposite of Obama’s.
We do NOT believe the spin from NBC, CNN and others that Trump is racist, sexist, or whatever. On the contrary – from what we see, he is foul-mouthed, thin-skinned and quick tempered with those who criticize him – but warm and kind to the varied and diverse groups he meets with when out speaking to people.
Importantly, while the ‘left’ appears to want to apply laws – (meaning, those statutes and rules that have been voted on and added to the code by our democratically elected Congress and State legislators) – discriminately and at times even ignore them completely, President Trump is focused on applying all law justly.
We also understand the real reasons for the laws he wants passed – even if the media feigns not to understand. After all, he has been GETTING his ideas from us. He has been listening to us about the laws we need to have passed and why we want them passed, he understands our needs, and appreciates as people.
The media’s attempts to twist and demonize what he is doing is ridiculous and just turns us off from them all the more. Someday, maybe the east coast news media will take time to speak directly to us, in a non-condescending manner, and discover what we know. They are more than welcome to learn from us as well.
President Trump is definitely struggling with old habits that aren’t easy to turn around after 70 years and he doesn’t have the smooth appearance people want him to have. But being a Christian isn’t about showing up at a church well-scrubbed. It is about something happening deep in the heart. President Trump is doing genuine things to protect our freedom of worship, unborn life, family, community, American jobs, Economy – Life, Liberty, Property – the heroes in our military, law enforcement, and Israel.
We happen to like that.
So yeah – we are willing to be patient as he grows in Christ and intend to continue keeping our eyes on what is important. We have no intention of allowing the left to destroy our nation again – so we will NOT help you – or allow you – to take away the first really good president we’ve had in decades.
And after the Trump term is over, we will find another to take his place.
Stormy, who said a few weeks ago that she had no relationship with Trump and assured everyone that saying this had nothing to do with money – can take the money from whomever offered her more than Trump’s lawyer did – and talk away. It won’t change a thing.
Hopefully, she – and all those of you on the left who struggle with accepting today’s reality – will connect with a real Christian at some point and have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment as well.
God be with you all, in the Holy Name of Jesus Christ.
Comments Off on Too Many Self-indulgent, Grandstanding Athletes. Turned off TV.
Feb122018
We are not watching the 2018 Winter Olympics. There’s been too much inane rhetoric from people like Lindsey Vonn, Adam Rippon and Shani Davis.
Too many on the US team are more interested in grandstanding…promoting and representing themselves…(or at best, just half of our citizens) – than they are in representing our nation.
America gifted them with a tremendous and rare opportunity. If they didn’t want to represent the nation, they shouldn’t have joined the team and accepted taxpayer’s money – from every ‘Identity Group’ in the nation – to attend.
From Glen Greenwald : “DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying lawyer language claiming that it is “focused exclusively on preparations for the General,” but, as Fischer noted, that passage “is contradicted by the rest of the agreement.” This would be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official (“A will pay Politician B to vote YES on Bill X”), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that “nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe,” and then have journalists cite that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face explicitly says the opposite.” (https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/ 11-5-2017)
Note references to control over communications concerning ” a certain primary candidate,” for example, as well as the letter gives control over funds and decisions beginning in Sept 2015 – although no primaries took place until 2016.
Comments Off on Far Left Protestors will NOT stop us.
Aug202017
by Lisa Morris
I am an evangelical Christian and constitutional conservative who will continue to speak the truth, no matter what.
I will not attend rallies – which lately appear to be setting people up as sitting ducks.
But I WILL continue to speak, write, and vote my conscience – using information based on Biblical, historical, and documented truth – no matter what anyone says, and no matter what anyone calls me.
Thank you, Lord Jesus, for the intelligent, wise, and good men who founded our nation and wrote our Constitution. It was an amazing, unparalleled achievement.
To those who are confused by the current inane rhetoric from the left, many of our founding fathers did NOT believe slavery should be legal and openly spoke, wrote, and campaigned against it.
Less than 100 years after the founding of our nation, through the tireless work of many, slavery was finally made illegal in the United States.
But legal slavery remains today in many other nations – and ILLEGAL slavery and human trafficking are growing in the United States.
THAT is where rage needs to be focused – if one honestly cares about what slavery does to people. Save those who are enduring forced servitude in America and around the world TODAY.
God save and BLESS America. Make America Great Again.
Comments Off on Silence About Conditions at Pine Ridge Reservation
Jun122017
by Thomas F. Sullivan
For generations, the residents of the Pine Ridge Reservation have lived with unemployment and poverty rates that have never been seen in the majority community even during the Great Depression.
According to an MSNBC Report on Pine Ridge on May 29, 2014, “Roughly four out of five residents are unemployed and well over half live in deep poverty…… Life expectancy is just 48 years old for men and 52 for women….. About 70 percent of the students will drop out of school before they graduate.”
That last statistic is especially troubling and is inconsistent with the claim frequently stated by tribal leaders that “Our children are sacred”.
According to that same MSNBC Report, “In a startling new draft report, issued in April 2014 by the Bureau of Indian Education which oversees 183 schools on 64 reservations in 23 states, focuses attention on BIE’s inability to deliver a quality education to its students. BIE schools are chronically failing. BIE operates ‘one of the lowest-performing set of schools in the country.’ During the 2012 – 2013 school year, only one out of four BIE-funded schools met state-defined proficiency standards and one out of three were under restructuring due to chronic academic failure…. BIE students performed lower on national assessment tests than students in all but one other major urban school district.”
Given these conditions which have persisted for generations as well as the almost total absence of any economic activity on the reservation, it is not surprising that there is a high level of dysfunction as well. This dysfunction is exemplified by the following health and social welfare measures:
* The infant mortality rate at Pine Ridge is one of the highest in the nation at 3 times the national average;
* The incidence of diabetes is 8 times the national average;
* Eight out of every ten people at Pine Ridge are alcoholics. Given this fact it is highly likely that most newborns on this reservation are born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), a severe developmental delay. Care of children with FASD requires an extended time commitment, great patience and resilience, none of which is in abundant supply in most reservation homes:
* Drug use and abuse, both prescription and illegal, is rampant;
* The teenage suicide rate is 150 percent of the national average. In the first 8 months of 2015. There were 19 completions by youth between the ages of 9 and 24 and more than 100 attempts by children from the same age group. Within the last week, a 12-year-old girl hanged herself on a tree behind the Sue Anne Big Crow Youth Center. Shortly before a 14-year-old boy recently completed, he was being counseled by one of his teachers. She told him that Lakota tradition teaches that a spirit set free by suicide is doomed to wander the earth in lonely darkness. “You don’t want that, do you?” His response was chilling, “Anything is better than here”.
* The level of domestic violence is at epidemic levels. In CY 2014 the Tribal Department of Public Safety prosecuted 470 cases of domestic violence. During the same period one of the Tribe’s domestic shelters reported they had responded to more than 1,300 cases of domestic violence:
* In CY 2016 there were 17 homicides on Pine Ridge, a rate 4 times the current homicide rate in the city of Chicago:
* For the last several years, the Pine Ridge reservation child protection staff has been investigating, relying on rigorous standards, every case of reported child sexual abuse and confirming, on average, 2 ½ cases per week for every week during each of those years. Considering that most estimates are that 10 percent or less of such abuse is ever reported, the seriousness of this level of child sexual abuse cannot be overstated.
* Research data are clear, children who are sexually abused are 2½ times more likely to attempt and/or complete suicide than children who have not been sexually abused.
On May 1, 2015, in the New York Times Ron Cornelius, the Great Plains Director of the Indian Health Service is quoted as saying, that “the recent suicides were an incredibly sad situation that IHS was committed to working with the tribe to address this heartbreaking problem.” It is not clear to me from the public record available to me just what the IHS has done to fulfill this commitment. At that time I was the ACF Regional Administrator in Denver and heard from friends on and around Pine Ridge, “There are a lot of ‘suits’ traveling to Pine Ridge. They are not meeting with anyone from the Reservation. They spend all of their time in a conference room talking with each other. They seem to make it a point to avoid any tribal members.”
However, former Pine Ridge Tribal Judge Saunie Wilson, in a power point presentation to a west coast conference on youth suicides in early 2017, described the 20 professionals sent to Pine Ridge by IHS to “solve” the reservation suicide epidemic in the following terms, “They had, No background checks, No licenses to work in South Dakota and No knowledge of reservation culture, mores or society.” Unfortunately, this is the same inept approach IHS used when there was a comparable burst of youth suicides on Montana’s Fort Peck Reservation several years earlier. I was invited by the Tribal Chair to sit in on the IHS meetings with Tribal staff as an impartial observer for the Tribe. As a result, I could observe what IHS was doing in response to the youth suicide burst on that Reservation. They were clearly not effective then. How could they believe they would be effective several years later?
On April 5, 2017, at a meeting of the Pine Ridge Tribal Law and Order Committee, the following statement was made by Richard Little Whiteman, a Council member and Chair of this Committee, “I haven’t seen this level of violence since the 1970s”. The Committee also heard reports that the number of law enforcement officers, once numbering more than 100 sworn officers, now was little more than 20, had the impossible task of policing a geographic area comparable in size to the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined 7 days a week, 24 hours every day.
What is especially puzzling is the deafening silence from both the media, those who by their titles and their government positions have direct responsibility to correct such problems and those who claim they are advocates working on behalf of the welfare of women and children.
For example, if either the city of Cambridge, MA or Berkeley, CA, each with a total population of approximately 100,000, had the same level of youth suicide completions as Pine Ridge, the following would be occurring:
1. There would be youth suicide completions just about daily in each of these communities.
2. There would not be enough curb space to park all of the media trucks providing a direct link to the community for their viewers. After all the media had ignored multiple detailed, factual reports about the dysfunction in these communities and predictions about what would follow from that dysfunction. Recognizing their prior error in not covering all of the dysfunction, media outlets were competing to provide the most offensive coverage. They characterized their coverage as “presenting the facts.”
3. Members of Congress would be convening hearings in these communities in an attempt to elicit some hints as to the cause of such dysfunction even though they had never mentioned these communities until the funerals began to be held when the dysfunction in these communities could no longer be ignored. Based on past experience the best that the local congressional delegation will be able to do is to appoint a study committee charged with reporting back on the cause of all the suicides within three years. No action would have to be taken to assist these communities until the study report was produced.
4. Advocates would be elbowing their way to get in front of any operating TV camera to push their unique solutions to such dysfunction even though they had not only known about the extreme dysfunction in these communities but they had also been silent about it until the funerals began.
5. State, county, and local officials would point at each other, claiming they had little or no responsibility to correct these problems. It was the responsibility of that “other guy” (whoever that unidentified person was) until federal funds were made available. Then the competition would be cut-throat. Each would cite their “expertise” on matters of this kind even though each had just established an extensive written record claiming they knew nothing about such matters in their efforts to avoid any responsibility (political punishment for refusing to deal with the dysfunction in their communities until the funerals began) for what was happening in these communities.
6. Federal officials whose organizations had been widely praised for formally adopting mission statements claiming they were responsible for the well-being of every citizen in their service area would initially deny any responsibility for such dysfunction, pointing at state, county or local officials as the parties responsible for addressing and correcting such behavior. When and if Congress appropriates funds to address and correct these problems, these same federal officials will distribute those funds without first establishing performance measures to determine the effectiveness of how these funds are spent. If the past is any guide, it will be several years before performance measures will be put in place.
If this is the response to the massive dysfunction and resulting epidemic of youthful suicides in communities like Cambridge or Berkeley, can anything better be expected at Pine Ridge?
Pine Ridge is a small, Isolated, rural community with little political power. They have been ignored and will continue to be ignored.
The sexual abuse of American Indian children should have resulted in a high-level commitment to stop the abuse once it had been uncovered years ago.
During the last two Administrations, I brought the twin epidemics of child sexual abuse and child/youthful suicides in Indian Country to the attention of the political leadership of the Administration for Children and Families and the Department of Health and Human Services with multiple, detailed, factual, written presentations. These presentations detailed the pervasive extent of the abuse, the long-term impact on the abused individuals, their families and the community at large and the substantial public cost of such abuse. They had no effect. It was as if they had never been read.
Until one is prepared to focus on and widely and continuously publicize the hypocrisy of those who know the facts and who deny or ignore them, thereby allying themselves with those who abuse children, nothing will be done to correct this barbaric situation. Until those who have chosen silence in the face of widespread child sexual abuse are publicly identified and shamed in all major media outlets for their alliance with sexual predators, attempting to stop the barbarism is a fool’s errand.
Thomas F. Sullivan is a former Regional Administrator for the Administration of Children and Families under the federal HHS. He was forced out of his job in May, 2016, after defying his DC superiors by repeatedly reporting on child abuse on several reservations.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From Elizabeth Morris, Chair of CAICW:
Watch this 20-minute video for more information concerning the ramifications of Native American heritage on Constitutional protections:
Comments Off on Standing Rock Chair Archambault Gives Surprising Answers in Interview:
Jan062017
“…Then I saw it just turn to where it’s ugly, where people are fabricating lies and doing whatever they can, and they’re driven by the wrong thing.”
…“I don’t want that pipeline to go through. I just don’t …want any kids to get abused, I don’t want any elders to get abused, I don’t want any rapes to happen. They don’t want any authority down there. What do you do then? Do I have to close it down with force?”
Q&A: David Archambault II, chairman of Standing Rock Reservation
by Christopher Trotchie”—From the Daily Emerald, January 5, 2017 at 1:54 pm
With the protest at Standing Rock entering its eighth month of resistance, a lot can be said about the resolve of the water protectors and their mission. They have gained international media attention, defied corporate interests and are now weathering a harsh winter. With the support of outsiders and each other, and as long as Dakota Access Pipeline construction lights shine down from the surrounding hills, water protectors believe they have a reason to be there. In this interview, I sat down with David Archambault II, the chairman of Standing Rock Indian Reservation, to discuss what his role is and how people in Eugene can support their cause.
Standing Rock Indian Reservation—
Christopher Trotchie: What is the best way for people in Eugene to help?
Dave Archambault II: I get that question asked all the time, “What can I do?” and I don’t think there is one answer. Whenever they come and they ask, there is so much that can be done. … What we try to do is just put the information on what the tribe is doing because there’s so many different interest groups, and we have a website called Standwithstandingrock.net. And if it’s something like divest from banks that are funding this, or if it’s writing a letter to Congress, or writing a letter to the administration, or writing requests or asks to the company or whoever, we have some templates on there. When it comes to donations ⎼ the tribe didn’t ask for funds ⎼ but people want to give to the tribe, and we’re thankful for that. So we have a tab on the website where you can donate on there, or if you want to give to whoever, there’s 5,500 different GoFundMe accounts. You could fund whatever you want. What I tell people is, it’s up to you whatever you want to do; follow your heart. And that usually takes you in that direction that you need to go.
T: What do you think the general condition of the camp is right now?
DA: Well I haven’t gone down there lately, because when the first storm came, I asked everybody to leave. And the second I made that statement somebody else from Standing Rock made the statement “don’t leave.” And then there’s been a lot of criticism on me saying that I sold out, and that I have a house in Florida, and that I have another house in Bismarck, and that I received money. And none of that’s true, but it’s just how everybody has turned on me. So it makes me curious about [what people’s intention are]. What are they here for? When we had the decision made by the Corps of Engineers not to give an easement, and to do an [Environmental Impact Statement] and to consider rerouting ⎼ those were the three things that we’ve been asking for the last two years. … So the purpose of the camp was fulfilled, and we got what we wanted. I understand that it’s not over. This new administration can flip it, so what we’re doing now is trying to do everything we can to make sure that that decision stays, but even then it’s not guaranteed. Right now it’s dangerous ⎼ tomorrow we’re going to get 15 inches of snow, 55 mile an hour wind. It’s not safe at the camp. And from what people are telling me, there’s a lot of empty tents all over and a lot of trash, and if we don’t clean up, when the flood waters rise all that stuff is going to be in the river. So we’re going to, at some time, get down there and clean up.
T: What is the biggest misconception about you currently?
DA: Just the perception that I’m not here for the fight is false and it’s wrong, and that’s kind of disturbing to hear all the fabricated lies about me when people don’t know me. People really don’t know who I am. And when somebody says something, and it’s believed and it’s passed on, it’s sad because we we’re the ones who started this whole thing. This tribe is the one who stepped up and filed the suit when we knew that we didn’t have a chance. We knew that the federal laws that are in place are stacked against us. They’re in favor of projects like [the pipeline], but we had to do it.
T: What is the impact of the protest on the tribe as a whole?
DA: On Standing Rock, we have eight districts. We have 12 communities. We have highways. We have our schools. We have ambulance services. And now because people choose to stay at the camp, we have to make sure that they’re out of harm’s way. So when the storms happen, we’re going to have a shelter here in Cannon Ball, and people are going to come. And they’re going to expect food, and they’re going to expect heat, and they’re going to expect blankets. So we provide that because it’s an emergency shelter. And then when the danger is gone, they stay there. They don’t leave. And the community says, “We want our gymnasium back.” … There’s really nothing going on. There’s no drilling going on. But they want to be there, and I think it’s because there was a good feeling when it first started. When we came together, tribal nations came together, and we prayed together, and we shared our songs, we shared our ceremonies. And it was a good strong feeling, but nobody wants to let that go. Nobody wants to move on. Those things that we learned from that lesson are things that we can take home to our communities and apply. We come from communities that are dysfunctional. We fight our own family, we fight each other’s families in the community, but what happened here was we were able to live without violence and without drugs or alcohol, without weapons. And we were able to do it with prayer and coming together. That lesson right there is something that we need to take back to our communities, but we don’t want to now. There are people down there that don’t want to leave. They think it is the greatest thing. But when you ask me ‘what’s the status,’ the things that I hear if I go down there, I don’t hear the good things anymore. I hear ‘this person did this,’ ‘they took this,’ and now I’m getting accused of doing that. So what we’re doing is bringing that dysfunction into something that was beautiful, and we’re letting the lessons slip through our hands. And we’re not learning. We’re hanging on to something that’s not there anymore. And so, I know that there’s a chance that this pipeline has to go through, but it’s not the end. It’s not the end of everything. We have to take the things that we learned, and accept it as a win. We have to take the processes, the policies, the regulations, the rules that are going to change because of what happened here, and take it as a win. Whether that pipeline goes through or not, I think we won.
T: How do you feel about the example that Standing Rock has set for other land struggles in the United States?
DA:This isn’t the first pipeline that anyone’s stood up to. This isn’t the first infrastructure project anyone’s stood up to, and I don’t think it is going to be the last. But it is something that we have to be mindful about though: if we’re going to take on the oil industry, it’s not going to be at the pipelines. We have to change our behavior, and we have to demand alternatives, and we have to start doing things different, and we have to stop depending on the government. This country is so dependent on oil. The whole nation is dependent on oil. If we want to fight these things, it’s not going to be where it’s being transported. It’s going to be at the source, and it’s going to be with the government.
T: Who is responsible for the camps?
DA:There’s never been anybody that was responsible. It was forever evolving from day one. The way it started was there were kids who said, ‘We don’t want this pipeline to go here.’ We don’t want oil in our water. So they ran from Wakpala to Mobridge over the Missouri River. They did it with prayer. Then the second thing that happened was a group of people got together in April and said we need to set up a spirit camp. So the first spirit camp was set up with prayer and then there was a ceremony, and in the ceremony individuals were identified to help with this. So when we had our first meeting, [there were] 200 people from Pine Ridge and 300 from Cheyenne River coming the next day. Where are they going to go? Where the spirit camp was set up was already bursting at the seams. … I brought the different groups together and I said, “We need to coordinate. We need to know what each other are doing.” Then they said I was colonizing them, and that I was trying to control them, trying to dictate to them because I was IRA government. It seemed like every time the Standing Rock Sioux tribe tried to help, we got bit. So you ask me who is running the camp down there? It’s whoever the people want to listen to and there is always someone who doesn’t want to listen. That is the disfunction. The good thing about the tribal government is [even] if the people don’t want to listen to me, it’s a role that everyone accepts. Down there, if someone does not accept it, [the leadership] will change. That is how it has been going. It’s been forever evolving from the first time we set up until today. Even now if I go down there, they’re not going to want to have anything to do with me because I asked them to leave.
T: Do you genuinely want people to leave the camps?
DA: Yeah. There is no purpose for it. What’s the purpose?
T: There seems to be some concerns for safety in the camps; how should these concerns be addressed?
DA: I don’t want that pipeline to go through. I just don’t want anyone to get hurt, I don’t want anyone to die, I don’t want any kids to get abused, I don’t want any elders to get abused, I don’t want any rapes to happen. They don’t want any authority down there. What do you do then? Do I have to close it down with force?
T: I don’t know… Do you?
DA: No, I’m not going to do that.
T: Why not?
DA: I don’t want that. I don’t want Wounded Knee. I don’t want to fight my own people.
I tell you what, when I say stuff and when I do stuff, it feels like no one is behind me. And I feel like I’m the only one that thinks like this. I feel like I’m the only one that really understands, and it makes me question whether or not I’m Indian.
Am I Indian enough? How come I don’t want to be there? And how come I don’t want to put people’s lives on the line? How come I don’t want to think it’s okay for them to die? I must not be Indian. I must not be Indian enough.
What I saw happen was something that was beautiful. Then I saw it just turn to where it’s ugly, where people are fabricating lies and doing whatever they can, and they’re driven by the wrong thing. What purpose does it have to have this camp down there? There are donations coming, so the purpose is the very same purpose for this pipeline; it’s money. The things that we learn from this camp — the things that were good, that people are doing whatever they can to hold onto — are slipping through their hands at this moment. And I feel like no matter what I say or what I do now, because it flipped and it turned, I have to be really careful; because they will say that I’m trying to facilitate this pipeline. That’s the last thing that I want and I’ve always said that. … We were offered money; I don’t want money. We were offered that land; I don’t want that land. I don’t want anything. I just don’t want that pipeline. It’s symbolic if I can stay with that course. We are so close, but there is a chance that it could go through. If it goes through, I’ll be the worst chairman ever, and if doesn’t go through, I’m the worst chairman ever. So there is no win for me. I don’t want a win; I don’t want anything from this. What I see is something that is so symbolic it could change… We have a chance to change the outcome for once: the outcome of who we are as people. There is a real opportunity here, and that is what I want. That is what I’m hoping for, is that we take these lessons that we are learning and change the outcome of who we are and what we are about and the future of our people.
From www.dailyemerald.com/2017/01/05/2468239/
———–
Our Note: Chairman Archambault: We understand the difficulty, angst, rejection, self-doubt and pain that can come with positions of higher office. Most leaders understand these feelings. Unfortunately, leaders are often required to make necessary decisions to lead people to the most beneficial and healthy outcome for the community. That is what the leader is there for. Leaders need to be men of strength and courage, who set aside the taunts of others and plow forward with wisdom and justice. SO – – If you KNOW it has gotten ugly, and you KNOW children, elders and the community in general are being hurt by the protesters – SEND THEM HOME.
Comments Off on Where Free-Market Economists Go Wrong
Dec052016
By Sheldon Richman
Depressing as it is, politics usually trumps economics. There’s nothing new in that, but free-market advocates ought to learn some lessons and adjust their strategy accordingly.
The politicians who run the government—and think they run the country—are afraid to appear as though they are doing nothing. We saw this when the recession hit. They were particularly worried about seeming to put party above the public good.
As the Wall Street Journal put it back then
The speed with which Washington hashed out the [stimulus] plan was driven mostly by the drumbeat of bad economic news. Behind the scenes, it was greased by other powerful motivations. Congressional Democrats needed to demonstrate they were capable of results after a year of gridlock. Republican lawmakers, up for re-election, wanted to show sensitivity to voters’ economic woes. And the White House didn’t want ‘recession’ added to its legacy.
Political interest was universally aligned against good economic sense. The politicians could get away with this because most of the public is economically illiterate. The “seen” overshadows the “unseen.” Such is how we get economic policy. It’s happening now.
As free-market economists point out, government cannot affirmatively stimulate what we misleadingly call “the economy.” (It’s not a machine; it’s people using their property to engage in transactions.) All government can do is move money around. To make some people able to spend more it must make other people spend less. Politicians imply that they know who ought to have more and who ought to have less, but beside the obvious injustice of the matter, they simply can’t know.
Economists Fall Short
I said the government can’t affirmatively stimulate the economy, but it can encourage productive activity. How? By not discouraging it.Here is where some free-market economists fall short in shaping the public debate. Too much of what they say is along these lines: “The economy is fundamentally healthy. Recessions are a necessary correction of errors. So just let the economy work through its current problems. The government need do nothing.”
That message should make advocates of individual liberty squirm because it implies that the market today is essentially as free as it needs to be. For example, a few years ago the news media proclaimed that gasoline prices were at historic highs. In fact, when adjusted for inflation they were not. But the economists pointing this out sounded a little too defensive, as though they were the defending the free market’s honor against its critics. What should we say if next week gasoline does hit a historic high and the anti-market folks blame the free market? I know what I’d say: What free market? (With all the subsidies and regulations on the books, can there possibly be a free market?)
The same defensiveness can be seen whenever a left-statist charges that the gap between rich and nonrich has widened or income mobility has ceased. Whatever the truth of these charges, libertarians shouldn’t react as though the free market’s honoris being assaulted. The critics may think it’s the free market they’re attacking. But—I say again— we have no free market.
Similarly, if economic activity slows down, it can’t be the free market’s fault.
What we have—and have had for a long time—is corporatism, an interventionist system shot through with government-granted privileges mostly for the well-connected–who tend to be rich businesspeople. This system is maintained in a variety of ways: through taxes, subsidies, cartelizing regulations, intellectual “property” protections, trade restrictions, government-bank collusion, the military-industrial complex, land close-offs, zoning, building codes, restrictions on workers, and more. As a result, people can get rich at the expense of the government’s victims. Even some who have prospered apparently by market means have actually done so through government intervention, such as transportation subsidies and eminent domain. Wealth can be transferred in many ways besides welfare and Medicaid, some of them quite subtle. Most transfers are upward.
Overlooked Facts
Free-market economists know this, but they often seem to forget it, such as when they indiscriminately defend firms (such as oil and pharmaceutical companies) in today’s corporatist economy. These economists convey the message that since in a free market people get rich and companies get big only by serving consumers, anyone who is rich today and any company that is big today must have gotten that way by serving consumers. The flaw in the argument should be obvious.
Given the corporatist nature of the economy, it is a mistake—as well as strategically foolish—to say the government should do nothing when a recession might be coming on or when recovery is disappointingly sluggish. There’s much it should do—or rather undo. Freedom’s advocates must spell this out in detail, revealing how existing government privilege harms the mass of people who have no political connections. In contrast, when an economist who proclaims his support for the free market says the current economy will fix itself, he brands himself a defender of the statist quo and turns his back on the State’s victims.
The freedom philosophy is a radical idea that looks ahead, rather than to some mythical golden era or Panglossian present. Every time we pass up an opportunity to make this point, we alienate potential allies who are concerned about those who are having a tough time of things. Yes, living standards have improved for decades and being poor in the United States is not what it used to be—thank goodness. That only shows that even a marketplace hampered by government privilege can produce astounding wealth. But to be satisfied with that is to be willing to trade freedom and justice for a mess of pottage.
What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. . . . Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost. [Emphasis added.]
Hayek wrote that over 60 years ago. We haven’t progressed as much as we like to think.
(A version of this article first appeared on February 1, 2008.)
Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America’s Families and thousands of articles.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
