The Roots of Nullification

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

Nullification does not seem to be a popular subject with many who write about the Constitution. In preparation for this article I checked out several books in my library written by those who had dealt with the Constitution and with the early days of this country. In most cases I found that the term “nullification” was not even included in the index of the book, which means the author did not bother to deal with it.

The one book I did find that dealt with it in a meaningful way was one written by my friend, Dr. Archie P. Jones and published by American Vision http://www.AmericanVision.org This book is The Gateway to Liberty–The Constitutional Power of The Tenth Amendment and this book was published back in 2010. This is an informative book and I would recommend it to those who have an interest in the Tenth Amendment. You will learn from what Archie has to say.

He deals with nullification on pages 65-68 and deals with the Bill of Rights and the need for it on pages 108-110. I will give readers some of his commentary here in the hope that you may be interested in getting the book.

Archie writes: “The principle of nullification is essential to federalism, for without it, the state governments are largely defenseless against power-hungry, unscrupulous central government encroachments and usurpations. Nullification laws are laws enacted by a state legislature declaring unconstitutional ‘federal’ (central government) laws to be without authority in the state and rendering such laws inoperative in that state. Without the right of nullification, a state has only the influence it can exert through its elected representatives in the central government to restrain and oppose central government usurpation of the state’s power and authority.” And let’s be honest here–how many of our elected representatives in Sodom on the Potomac are really concerned with protecting the rights of the folks back home? Not nearly enough! Oh, there is a handful that are, but it is only a handful. The rest are busily trying to sell us out to the New World Order because that is where their true allegiance lies–not to the folks that elected them.

Archie continues: “Nullification is a form of interposition; it is a means by which the state’s civil government officials can protect the lives, persons, property and liberty of the people of their state against unconstitutional laws and actions emanating from the ‘federal’ or central government. By extension, if other states are persuaded to join in enacting and enforcing similar legislation, nullification protects the liberty and wellbeing of the people of the whole United States against unjust and unconstitutional laws promulgated by the central government. As a form of interposition, nullification is more than a right of a state’s civil government: it is a moral duty of a state’s civil government and its officials to protect the moral and constitutional liberty of that state’s people against injustice and illegality emanating from the central government…The most important institution of civil government for protecting our liberty in the complex system of civil government bequeathed to us in our Constitution is the government of each state…Obviously they intended the civil government which most affected the lives of Americans to be the state government, not the national government.”

Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way. Too often the federal government has enacted all manner of laws and executive decrees that do not pass constitutional muster and no one has objected to them–least of all our elected representatives!

Nullification, if enacted by the states will begin to shut down this process of our being forced to follow decrees and mandates that are clearly unconstitutional.

I have to note here also that the Kennedy Brothers, Ron and Donnie, have been advocating nullification in their recent books Dixie Rising–Rules for Rebels, and Be Ye Separate–Bible Belt Revival or Marxist Revolution.

The fact that several states are now seeking to enact nullification laws in response to federal tyranny shows that this is an idea whose time has come and the states had better start enacting nullification laws to protect their residents lest we end up becoming just another Communist dictatorship, ruled by a group with an unquenchable lust for power.

Red State Secession? Why Not? We No Longer Have a Country!

by Al Benson Jr.

Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

I watched several videos yesterday of the protests in Washington. While I do not agree with the violence I saw in some of them, I can understand the frustration of the Trump supporters as they begin to realize that this recent election was stolen from them and that, if the truth be known, they no longer have a country.

For much of last year we had communist riots across much of the country where communist thugs looted, stole and burned parts of various cities while the police were ordered to stand down and let them do whatever they wanted. But let Trump supporters protest in Sodom on the Potomac and here come the police with guns blazing! One woman was killed by them and three others were also shot and over 50 were arrested. Had they belonged to Black Lives Matter or Antifa the police would never have raised a hand against any of them. They would have had carte blanche to wreck the city in the name of “racial justice.”

The shameful way this is all playing out should help patriotic conservatives to begin to realize that they no longer have a country. The deep state and the communist thugs they employ have now taken it over and the patriots are a despised class, to be dealt with as the left decides. Democrats are already making out an “enemies list” of people they plan to intimidate and harass. So much for “uniting” the country! One hardcore leftist told a radio talk show host recently that “we don’t want to unite with you. We want to destroy you.” This is what the leftists always do–destroy their enemies. That’s why Communism has systemically killed millions over the years. There can be no “uniting” with those who plan your demise. There can only be resistance–and separation.

I won’t get into it much in this article, but I came into possession of a new small book by Ron Kennedy just recently. The title of it is Red State Red County Secession–Creating a Nation of Our Own. It was published by The Scuppernong Press P O Box 1724 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27588 https://www.scuppernongpress.com I would urge you all to check it out.

I will note a few of Ron’s comments here so you get an idea of where he is coming from and will deal with more from the book in upcoming articles. Some of those who laugh at the idea of secession may not laugh when they get through this little book.

Ron notes: “Many national journalists and political commentators predict a coming civil war in America. This civil war will be between those who wish to impose a government, based on a radical leftist, politically correct ideology versus those who want to maintain and promote traditional, conservative, moral, social and political values–what we would call–‘American values.’ Folks who wish to honor those American values which made this country are now subjects of an evil, ‘neo-Marxist’ shadow government that controls America’s politically correct institutions of influence…If those of us who wish to live in a society based on traditional American values are to survive, and if our traditional American values are to be passed on to the next generation, we must have a country of our own. Without a country of our own, we become a stateless people–a people who have no effective way to defend themselves against neo-Marxist enemies determined to exterminate everything we hold dear.”

Continuing, Ron observed: “The ‘knee-jerk’ to the mere suggestion of secession is not that different than how Patrick Henry was treated in 1775 when he called for the American Colonies to declare their independence from an oppressive British Empire…With cries of ‘treason’ they rejected the idea of American self-government. Patrick Henry’s reply to the charge of treason echoes down to us today, ‘If this be treason, then let us make the most of it!’ After the 2020 campaign to elect America’s first ‘mail-ordered’ president, secession is now seen, not as treason, but as the possible solution to America’s irreconcilable ideological divide–the Red State–Blue State social, moral, ideological, and political divide…We can be sure secession became an acceptable political alternative in modern America when a traditional, religious leader from Wisconsin sees secession as a modern-day possibility.”

I submit that, in light of yesterday’s events in Washington, this is something we need to consider, discuss, debate and study. We, especially in the South, have become a people without a country. We in the South, and those in the ranching, farming, mining culture of the Far West are the only people in the country whose adversaries get to decide what the narrative about us will be and how it will be presented to the public at large. That’s why our flags and monuments come down–because we are consistently lied about and those lies are spread nationwide.

More on this and on Ron Kennedy’s book will be upcoming as the Lord allows.

Was the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Incident a Federal Sting Operation?

by Al Benson Jr.

For a change this has been a good week. Given our culturally Marxist regime in Washington and the wannabees in most of our state capitals, us ordinary folks don’t experience many good weeks anymore. So we should be thankful to the Lord when He gives us one.

To start off, in a typically culturally Marxist move in Fredericksburg, Virginia, the usual culture destroyers were at it again (they never stop). A local college sociology professor and some of his students wanted to get the City Council of Fredericksburg to rename Jefferson Davis Highway there because, after all, Davis was a slaveowner. They got one  city councilman to propose a motion on that, but the effort rather fell apart when they couldn’t even get a second for the motion from anyone else on the City Council. And so, Jeff Davis Highway in Fredericksburg remains Jeff Davis Highway–at least until the next attempt to change it comes along, or until after the election.

And in the same vein, for whatever reason, the FBI has decided to reopen the Hillary email case they had blandly smoothed over last July when the recommended no indictment for Hillary.  That was expected. This wasn’t. Something happened, somehow, to make the FBI think they had to revisit this, with only 12 days until the election. Who knows what indigestion rumbles around in the bowels of the Establishment, but something happened to force them to reopen this can of political worms. Was it Wikileaks? Proof that the Lord does answer prayer. We will see what He will allow to happen in this situation.

But the one that really caught my attention, probably because I have spent time in the West and followed the Sagebrush Rebellion over the years, was the result of the trial of the folks in Portland, Oregon known as “the Malheur 7.” Two of these seven were Ammon and Ryan Bundy, whose family I wrote about in several articles on this blog back in April of 2014 during the Bundy Ranch standoff. Check my articles on this blog for April of 2014. There are ten of them, all about the Bundy Ranch situation in Nevada.

The Malheur 7 have been on trial in Portland, Oregon for their occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon. This was the tragic situation that resulted in the FBI gunning down Lavoy Finnicum at a roadblock while he was on his way to a peaceful meeting. They claimed he pulled a gun–so they shot him nine times. See the article on this blog for January 31, 2016. Personally, from what I have read about Mr. Finnicum and seen in the videos he has made, you will pardon me if I find the FBI’s account of this rather dubious. These are the same people who shot Randy Weaver’s wife in the head while she stood holding a child in her arms at Ruby Ridge in Idaho. Anyone remember Ruby Ridge? It really must have taken a brave man to shoot a woman holding a child. I understand he got a medal for that–so you will understand why I have some reservations as to their sterling qualities.

The court trial in Portland in which the Bundys were tried, along with five others,was, in my opinion, payback for the Bundy Ranch situation over two years ago.

Almost no one who followed this trial, from what I have read, expected anything other than a guilty verdict. As I have read about the occupation of the wildlife refuge on and off over the months, I was convinced that this was one situation the Bundys and their friends should have passed up. The adverse publicity they got from this was designed to portray them as the devil incarnate, given what the “news” media does to those who stand on patriotic principles.

The “Just Us” Department alleged some things during the trial they presented no evidence for, and their contention that the Bundys and the others were terrorizing the people who worked there seemed to have no basis in fact, but with the Feds, such is no surprise.

An article on http://www.lewrockwell.com for October 28th, by Roger I. Roots, noted the following: “The U S Justice Department alleged in Count 1 that the seven defendants (and many others) had engaged in an ‘armed standoff’ at the federal wildlife refuge with the intent of scaring away the various government employees who normally work there. Every defendant was utterly innocent of this allegation…In fact, Ammon Bundy and the other defendants took a monumental (and quite daring) stand for the plain text of the Constitution when they occupied the Malheur Refuge in January of this year. They pointed to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U S Constitution which seems to plainly forbid the federal government from owning land inside the states unless the states agree to sell such real estate to the federal government.  Needless to say, the present reality in the American west is in sharp contrast to this piece of the constitutional text. The feds claim to own and control millions of acres of land in the western states–most of which (such as the Malheur Refuge area) was never purchased from state legislatures or anyone else.” So where do the feds get the authority to do all this? Why they just assume it–because no one else has the power to refuse their “requests.” So whatever you think of the Constitution (and many of us are not totally enthralled with it) the Bundys felt they had a clear and consistent understanding of what it said and that’s what they operated on.

However, the thing that made me wonder if this whole thing was, indeed, a federal sting operation, was what Mr. Roots said toward the end of his article. He stated that: “Most startling of all were the undercover government informants that were revealed in the trial. After weeks of wrangling and arguing with defense lawyers, the Justice Department finally stipulated that at least nine undercover informants were planted among the Refuge occupiers. Thus, informants outnumbered the defendants on trial. One informant was even a bodyguard for Ammon Bundy and drove him to his arrest. Another informant admitted he trained occupiers in shooting and combat skills.” In my opinion when you have more informants than defendants, something doesn’t smell right. And when you have one of the informants training the occupiers in shooting skills and combat techniques it definitely doesn’t smell right–in fact it stinks outright! At what point did these informants become involved? Were they there at the beginning? Did they have a part in the planning of this operation?

I don’t know all the facts in this case, but I wonder who got the Bundys involved in it to begin with–and were the people that got them into it among the informants? If so, then this constitutes what we call a sting operation–getting someone to take part in something “illegal” they ordinarily wouldn’t have done unless you conned them into it and then you busted them for doing what you had conned them into.

It appears, though, that the jury in this case saw through all the federal chicanery because it acquitted all seven defendants, much to the pleasant surprise of many of us and to the chagrin of those in the Federal Establishment, who, I am sure, will now seek to find some other way to punish these folks for daring to defend their rights.

Robert Lewis Dabney and the Forty-Eighters

by Al Benson Jr.

Many in our day, some of them so-called “historians” have sought to paint the Old South as a land of bigotry, ignorance, and treason.  They do this either because of gross ignorance, which was foisted upon them in public schools, or because they have an agenda that is geared toward the total destruction of any and all Southern culture, particularly Christian Southern culture. Everything that existed before the Beatles except slavery and the “civil rights” movement must be expunged, while these must be preserved in order to promote the proper amount of “white guilt.”

Robert Lewis Dabney, one of the most remarkable of the Southern Presbyterian theologians and a man who served on Stonewall Jackson’s staff had the presence of mind to recognize what was going on in this country even before the start of the War of Northern Aggression, and he, unlike some of his contemporaries, understood  what it was really all about. With the discernment he possessed in so many areas you might almost say he was the Patrick Henry of his day.  He had that rare ability Henry had in noting what the results of various actions would be if pursued to their logical conclusions.  He correctly foresaw where both the public education movement and the women’s “rights” movement were going while theological contemporaries like Henry Ward Beecher in the North were indulging in theological  “reality shows.”

Rev. Dabney early recognized what was going on in Europe and its implications for this country, particularly the South. He noted some of this in his masterful biography of the life of Stonewall Jackson, published in 1866, and subsequently republished by Sprinkle Publications of Harrisonburg, Virginia in 1983.

In this volume of over 700 pages he observed, quite correctly, on page 159, that: “History will some day place the position of these Confederate States, in this high argument, in the clearest light of her glory.  The cause they undertook to defend was that of regulated, constitutional liberty,  and of fidelity to laws and covenants,  against the licentious violence of physical power. The assumptions they resisted were preciously those of that radical democracy, which deluged Europe with blood at the close of the eighteenth century, and which shook its thrones again in the convulsions of 1848; the agrarianism which, under the name of equality, would subject all the rights of individuals to the will of the many, and acknowledge no law nor ethics, save the lust of that mob which happens to be the larger. This power, which the old States of Europe expended such rivers of treasure and  blood to curb, at the beginning of the century, had transferred its immediate designs across the Atlantic, was consolidating itself anew in the Northern States of America, with a wealth, an organization, an audacity, an extent, to which it never aspired in the lands of its birth, and was preparing to make the United States,  after crushing all law there under its brute will, the fulcrum under whence  they should extend their lever to upheave  every legitimate throne on the Old World. Hither, by emigration, flowed the radicalism, discontent, crime, and poverty of Europe,  until the people of the Northern States became, like the rabble of imperial Rome…” Reflect on what Dabney has said here. Really, how different is it than what we are currently experiencing in this country” Does anyone see the parallels? They are amazing!

Dabney continued: “The miseries and vices of their early homes had alike taught them to mistake licence for liberty, and they were incapable of comprehending, much more of loving, the enlightened structure of English or Virginian freedom.  The first step in their vast designs was to overwhelm the Conservative States of the South.  This done, they boasted that they would proceed, first, to engross the whole of the American continent, and then to emancipate Ireland, to turn Great Britain into a democracy, to enthrone Red Republicanism in France, and to give the crowns of Germany to the Pantheistic humanitarians of the race, who deify self as the supreme end, and selfish desire, as the authoritative expression  of the Divine Will. This, in truth, was the monster who terrific pathway among the nations, the Confederate States undertook to obstruct, in behalf not only of their own children, but of all the children of men.” This is definitely not a worldview you will get out of your “history” books. What Dabney has done here is to provide you with an outline of the agenda of the One World Government advocates of the 1860s.  And look at who their main opponent was.  Do you begin now to see why anything even remotely Confederate has been and is so much under attack in our day? Stop and think about what Dabney has told you.  This is a struggle that is much more than just North vs. South. In 1861 the Confederate States  stood in the way of the new World Order of their day and said NO! And they have been getting back at us for it ever since! And they will continue to do so unless, in God’s Providence, we prevail, or they do. They will not quit. Neither can we!

And, in this vein, Dabney made another insightful observation when he said: “One half of the prisoners of war, registered by the victorious armies of the South, have been foreign mercenaries. ” So this was much, much more than just a “brothers war” as we have been told. This fact was borne out in research done by Dr. Clyde Wilson, Professor Emeritus of the University of South Carolina, who noted that: “The German revolutionaries brought with them an aggressive drive to realize in America the goals that had been defeated in their homeland.  Their drive toward ‘revolution and national unification’…The most prominent among them, Carl Schurz, expressed disappointment at the non-ideological nature of American politics and vowed to change that.” His spiritual descendants have been working on that ever since. The current occupant of the White House is the most glaring example of the success of their venture.

Donnie Kennedy and I, in our book Lincoln’s Marxists, on page 219, noted that: “In his commentary, Dr. Wilson mentioned the events surrounding a German officer who, after the surrender, buttonholed Confederate General Richard Taylor and proceeded to inform Taylor  that he would soon recognize the gross errors  the South had made in fighting the war.  He informed Taylor, in very broken English, that he would soon rejoice because of the final results of the war. The German seems quite ready to instruct General Taylor on the fine points of Americanism.” This from a European socialist who could barely speak the language,  to a man whose father had been President of the United States! This is socialist arrogance at its finest and it continues to this day. Look at the finger-pointing, condescending attitude we are treated to today from a president that spent a fair part of his life in Indonesia and who we are told has an African father.  Yet his version of “Americanism” sounds like something that hailed from a Middle Eastern caliphate. It’s almost like Fidel Castro giving lessons in American government to Thomas Jefferson!

As previously noted, this struggle is much more than an “unpleasantness” between North and South.  It is, as Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell so truthfully stated: “The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slave-holders–they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground–Christianity and atheism the combatants, and the progress of humanity is at stake.” I don’t think anyone else could have said it any better. This is where we are at right now, and unless we get on our knees and plead, with repentance, for the Lord to guide us in the ways of legitimate resistance, we will lose it all, at least for our time in history.

Christian Opposition, Checks & Balances, Etc.

by Al Benson Jr.

Having read several insightful articles by Al Cronkrite, a freelance Reformed Christian writer who lives in Florida, I usually pay attention when I see his name on an article because I know I will get something that goes beyond the usual “patriotic” chatter that is so prevalent on the Internet. Mind you, I am not against patriotism, but lots of what floats around out there today is not real patriotism but merely a shallow brand of nationalism–sort of like “My country, right or wrong–rah, rah, rah.” In its own way it’s just as bad as liberalism because it leads sincere Americans down the garden path to Nowheresville when they should be on the cultural path removing the thorns.

Having said that, I recall reading an article by Mr. Cronkrite in The Covenant News back in July of 2009 where he observed that most folks today view our founders as mostly Christian men “…who produced documents that, if they were not expressly Christian, contained Christian principles. Others find it strange that Christian men would fail to encode the name of the Savior or refer to His dominion.” Regarding the Constitution that brings a different dimension to the topic, one that Gary North has referred to more than once in his writings.

Mr. Cronkrite, along with others, also observed that: “The Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in the Summer of 1787, was a secret gathering convened for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. It was an elite group that Jefferson described as ‘demigods’. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and probably President George Washington had no intentions of abiding by the instructions from congress to revise the Articles. Their intention was to form a new federal government which they believed the states would accept in order to solve the problems they were having in conducting their inter-state affairs. They were conspiratorial and dishonest in their actions but right in their political assessment…Patrick Henry of Virginia claimed he ‘smelled a rat’ and refused to attend.” Time has shown how foul the rat Henry smelled really was, and is.

It has been duly noted by Mr. Cronkrite that almost nothing has been written about Christian opposition to the final results of the Constitutional Convention. And I have to admit that none of the history I have come across has mentioned any of this, even the home school material. He observed that: “The shift from a reformation to a substitution was successful and in the exuberant pride that characterized the birth of a new nation the still small voice of the Creator was drowned out and a grave error was made. Several prominent clergymen expressed their dissatisfaction. Rev. John Mason of New York wrote, ‘Should the citizens of America be as irreligious as her Constitution, we will have reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity, by a people anymore than by individuals, overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing, and crush us to atoms in the wreck’.”

Also, “Rev. Samuel Austin said, the Constitution ‘is entirely disconnected from Christianity. It is not founded on the Christian religion.’ Rev. Samuel Taggart lamented the lack of Christian reference to be a national evil of great magnitude.’ ‘It is a great sin to have forgotten God in such an important national instrument and not have acknowledged Him in that which forms the very nerves and sinews of the political body,’ lamented Rev. George Duffield. Rev. Jedediah Morse thought that the secular Constitution meant that America, like ancient Israel was doomed. Rev. James Wilson considered its creation ‘a degree of ingratitude, perhaps without parallel’.”

Now, folks, stop and reflect for a minute. How much about this Christian opposition to the Constitution have you ever read about in “history” books? I’ll wager that about all you ever read what just about what I read–that almost no one was opposed to it but Patrick Henry and a mere handful of his friends, who must all surely have had charter memberships in the Flat Earth Society. Those folks were supposedly anachronisms that just couldn’t see the pressing need for consolidation–Henry and his dwindling number of friends were a bit shortsighted, so it’s a good thing no one listened to them (or Leviathan wouldn’t be where it is today) and that’s about all you get, if that. The anti-Federalist arguments against ratification are seldom, if ever, mentioned–and as anachronistic as I guess I must be, the ones I’ve read about I’ve agreed with.

Mr. Cronkrite informed his readers that one of the big selling points for the new Constitution was that old, mythical “separation of church and state” story–the so-called government “neutrality” in regard to religion. All you have to do is look at where we are today in this regard and ask yourself–how’s that “government neutrality” in regard to religion working out for you nowadays? Anything even remotely Christian is now constantly under attack, while all the other pagan faiths seem to be getting a poss. Folks, this is not by accident. I put that in bold letters because we need to grasp that. Muslims will get to do in many educational institutions what Christians couldn’t even dream about. Any perversion today is accepted, no matter how gross, as long as it flies in the face of Christian culture. It’s all “protected” except Christianity and it’s open season on us and that’s not by accident.

I read an article on LewRockwell.com for October 30th written by Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics, in which he noted a raid in Texas by a SWAT team on a community in which there was no probable cause. The inhabitants had done nothing wrong, did not use drugs; no weapons or anything illegal was found, but the SWAT team handcuffed people, destroyed their crops, and pretty much did what they wanted because they could.

In his article Mr. Armstrong observed: “Raiding such a community without probable cause is totally unconstitutional. This is my point about the Constitution–it is just a worthless scrap of paper with the purpose of providing propaganda and false hope. The Constitution protects nobody. It was supposed to be a self-restraint upon government. It fails in every respect. Government agents can do as they like and it is the BURDEN of the citizen to prove that they violated the Constitution.” I might not have said it quite the way he did, but he does have a point.

There are no real restraints upon government, no real checks and balances so that if one branch oversteps its bounds the others will bring it to heel. They all collude with one another to quash whatever rights the citizens have, all the while telling us we live in a “free country”–the freest on earth they tell us–and it’s all just so much bovine fertilizer. This government has gone rogue–it went that way noticeably when the Lincoln administration started, but it had been showing signs of major slippage before that. John C. Calhoun noticed it before he died in 1850.

It really appears to me that we have a government that is one thing when we have been told it was something else. Most of us who have followed the political situation realize that we have been shamelessly lied to by “our” government about just about everything in our lifetime. But what about our ancestors? Were they lied to in the same way about what went on in their day? What about the War of Northern Aggression, the Spanish-American War, World Wars 1 and 2, Pearl Harbor, the USS Liberty, the Kennedy Assassinaton, and a plethora of other things I could spend paragraphs on just listing? Where, in all of this and more, has there been “constitutional” protection for our citizens–from their own government?

We had better start grappling with some of this folks, before the gates to the FEMA camps open wide and we all become “memory hole” material–naturally under the protection of the US Constitution, replete with its “checks and balances.”