Massachusetts Governor Calls Unconstitutional Order -- MassResistance Stopped Unconstitutional Power Grab

Did the Massachusetts governor have actual legal power to shut down society over COVID-19? The answer seems to be: No.

How MassResistance made a big difference in stopping the governor's "legal" emergency powers.

By Brian Camenker
May 22, 2020

NOTE: This article originally appeared in American Thinker.

 The cradle of liberty? In the historic Boston Common -- where the patriots and revolutionaries once walked -- people now wear masks in obedience to the Governor's orders. (We're surprised that the dog wasn't arrested for a violation!) [All photos by MassResistance]

Governors across the country are imposing harsh, sweeping, and often arbitrary statewide edicts on the basis of a COVID-19 emergency. But where did governors get these powers? Were they legitimately created by state legislatures, or are the governors (and local authorities) just dreaming them up as they go along? Most people don’t know. Sadly, few are asking this question.

 Sign just inside the main entrance of a supermarket in Massachusetts.

Over a decade ago in Massachusetts, MassResistance played a big part in limiting the governor’s “legal” powers during a pandemic. That successful effort applies to today’s situation. And it makes Governor Charlie Baker’s power grab even more disturbing.

But this story actually began several decades earlier.

The Massachusetts Civil Defense Act of 1950

On August 29, 1949, the USSR successfully detonated its first atomic bomb. Cold War panic quickly ignited across America. There were fears of a Soviet invasion of the United States. The following year, the Massachusetts Legislature reacted by passing the “Civil Defense Act – Chapter 639 of the Acts of 1950.”

The main stated purpose of the law was to give the state government a way to “effectively minimize the damage” from “attack, sabotage, or other hostile action” by “enemies of the United States.” The Legislature also included some other categories of disasters that cause physical damage: “disaster or catastrophe resulting from riot or other civil disturbance; or by fire, flood, earthquake or other natural causes.”

That law gives the governor the power to proclaim a “state of emergency” throughout Massachusetts. During the state of emergency, the governor is given extraordinary powers – and can supersede existing statutes if he chooses. Those powers, which are broadly listed in the statute, are quite frightening and many appear unconstitutional. They are clearly laid out to deal with enemy attacks, riots, etc. For example, cooperation with military and naval forces is described. Nothing in the law addresses or implies public health concerns or pandemics.

The “Pandemic Control Bill” of 2009 is filed

Fast forward nearly 60 years to 2009. There had been recent warnings in the medical community that an H1N1 swine flu epidemic would emerge that year and spread widely. The Mass. Dept. of Public Health (DPH) wanted to be able to declare a medical emergency and use extraordinary state powers to deal with it.

But it was clear to everyone that the Civil Defense Act of 1950 does not include “public health” emergencies. Another statute, MGL Ch 17 Sec 2A, does allow the governor to declare a “public health emergency” – but the powers it gives the state are very limited. The statute only allows the Commissioner of Public Health to establish vague “procedures” for those maintaining public health services.

So the DPH worked with the medical lobby and a prominent State Senator (who had close ties to the pharmaceutical industry) to create a far-reaching “Pandemic Control Bill” on a par with the Civil Defense Act.

Bill S2028, titled “An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response in the Commonwealth,” was quietly filed in early 2009. For months it sailed under the radar. That April, it was passed by the State Senate unanimously.

MassResistance read the bill – and reacted …

Within a few months, Amy Contrada, our MassResistance researcher, noticed that this oddly titled bill had been gaining unusual momentum. When she looked it up and read it she was shocked.

The bill rewrote and powerfully strengthened MGL Ch 17 Sec 2A (referenced above). It reiterated that the governor could declare a “public health emergency” separate from the emergencies enumerated in the Civil Defense Act. Similar to the Civil Defense Act, it included a long list of broad (and clearly over-the-top and unconstitutional) powers that the governor could use to deal with that emergency.

Among other things, this draconian bill would have given the state the power to enter and search houses, take property, detain people, prohibit assemblies of people, require vaccinations, and much more – and it set penalties for non-compliance at $1,000 per day plus jail time. Some people were calling this the "Storm Trooper Bill" because of the frightening extra-constitutional powers it would give the state against citizens.

MassResistance published a full report on the dangers of the radical pandemic control bill, S2028. We also published a line-by-line analysis of the text of the bill.  In addition, we reported how the DPH Commissioner admitted in his testimony that the medical establishment and those close to “big pharma” helped write the bill.

 This is the direction that politicians invariably take if given the opportunity.

… And we successfully battled to stop it!

As the Massachusetts House of Representatives was preparing to take up Bill S2028, we got right to work. MassResistance mobilized hundreds of people across the state to demand that their State Reps reject the bill.

MassResistance also began a national media campaign about the bill to inform people. It was quite successful. Judge Andrew Napolitano did a segment on national Fox News about S2028. (Unfortunately, the video of that segment is no longer posted.) National conservative media such as WorldNetDaily also covered it.

The Massachusetts DPH reacted to MassResistance’s activism by staging its ownintensive House lobbying campaign to get S2026 passed. Here’s our report on the hardcore DPH lobbying efforts.

But the public outrage was clearly rattling the House members. So on Oct. 8, 2009, the Democrat House leadership decided to fast-track it through. They brought it to the floor, renamed it H4275, and quickly added 17 amendments (which no one had time to read). Then the House passed it by 133-36. Here’s the MassResistance report on the new version, H4275.

But the fight wasn’t over yet. Since the House version was now different from the version than the Senate had passed, the bill went to a six-member conference committee to create a compromise version, which would be re-voted by both branches and sent to the governor for signing.

The bill’s proponents were jubilant. When a bill is sent to conference committee, the whole process generally takes just a few days to resolve, get passed again by both branches, and then sent to the governor.

But not this time! MassResistance INTENSIFIED the pressure on the six-member conference committee. Even more angry people got involved! As a result, the bill stalled. Weeks and weeks passed. On Dec. 31, 2009, the legislative session ended. The bill was dead. And in the years since then, it has never come back. We had won!

And although the swine flu pandemic of 2009 was worse than the normal flu season, it was nowhere near the “public health emergency” that had been predicted by the Mass. DPH. No extra-legal measures were needed to deal with it.

Mass. Governor now using 1950 Civil Defense Act to grab power

So where did Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker get his “legal” power to close the schools, close most businesses (and arbitrarily decide which ones may be open), close all churches, ban all groups of people and assemblies, order all citizens to “social distance,” require everyone to wear masks in public, and much more?

He has no legal authority for any of this. It’s all counterfeit. There is no actual “Pandemic Control Law” to use, so Baker is dishonestly relying on the old Civil Defense Act. If you look at any of his Executive Orders on the COVID-19, they reference the two laws described above – the Civil Defense Act of 1950 and MGL Ch 17 Sec 2A (which is still very weak).

As described above – and as the Legislature noted in 2009 – the Civil Defense Act does not include “public health” emergencies. And although the Civil Defense Act has a lot of extra-constitutional features, it does not allow the governor to close churches, close schools, or issue many of the other orders that Baker has so cavalierly dictated.

And how has the Massachusetts Legislature reacted? They largely support Baker’s actions, and many legislators have even encouraged him to go further.

It is worth noting here what really struck us back in 2009 when MassResistance activists were working to persuade the Legislature to reject that pandemic control bill: Not a single legislator cared at all about its Constitutional problems. Their mindset then (and now) was not to protect people’s liberties, but the exact opposite – to do whatever they can get away with. To them, the Constitution is something read in high school civics class but not something to seriously consider as government officials. They are instead swayed by the heavy hand of the legislative leadership, powerful special interests, or large numbers of very angry constituents. It’s a sad lesson that many conservatives still need to learn.

So now we are seeing lawless orders across the U.S. which – shockingly – large numbers of citizens seem content with. Too few are taking the time to understand what is really happening and challenge their officials.

Let’s remember Benjamin Franklin’s observation: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The nation’s acquiescence will surely come back to haunt us.

 The new "bread lines." Masked shoppers line up the mandatory 6 feet apart outside a Massachusetts supermarket. The governor only allows a fraction of the normal capacity of shoppers to be inside.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

MassResistance Warned the World About Romney -- Help Us Do So Again

MassResistance warned the world about Mitt "Gay Marriage" Romney.

Here's the full expose, and a chance to help MassResistance complete their fundraising goals:

We were on the job when nobody else would do it ...

UPDATE: We're working hard to reach our $50,000 fundraising goal, which will then be matched by a generous donor – for a total of $100,000! As of today, we need to raise $7,710 by this Friday, Nov. 1, to get there. This will make a huge difference for our organization. If you were planning to support a pro-family group this year, this is the time to do it because you will "double your money"! What does your money do? Here’s just one example.

When “gay marriage” first came to the world (in Massachusetts), MassResistance was the only group that aggressively challenged the elected officials - including Gov. Mitt Romney. Now, Mitt Romney is in the news again. He recently admitted to using a Twitter account under the fake name Pierre Delecto to attack the President and others. But when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, he was in the middle of a much bigger storm. In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court shocked the world by ruling that “gay marriage” must be implemented in the state. Publicly, Romney was against it. He partnered with the mainstream pro-family groups to support a Constitutional Amendment to nullify the ruling. (Actually, it would still have allowed “gay” civil unions or domestic partnerships, though not “marriage”.) MassResistance made the constitutional arguments for the Governor to halt “gay marriage” in Massachusetts. Our position was supported by prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly, Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and even Hugh Hewitt. But Romney ignored all of them and refused to use the Constitutional powers of the Governor to stop it (or even attempt to). MassResistance suspected that Romney was being dishonest to conservatives. And we were right. Over several months, we uncovered how the Romney administration was secretly supporting “gay marriage” in Massachusetts: We exposed how Romney’s staff set up “gay marriage” training sessions for public employees. He ordered Town Clerks across the state to perform and register “gay marriages” or else be fired. His administration was also working closely with major LGBT activists make sure they were satisfied with the progress. (During his campaign he promised them he’d be “gay friendly.”) And he never put his full support behind the Constitutional Amendment, which ultimately failed in the Legislature. In addition, MassResistance wrote legislation to impeach the judges who made this illegal ruling. It was filed in the Massachusetts Legislature by two prominent pro-family Democrat State Reps! It didn’t pass, but it sent a strong message, despite the fact that Romney refused to support it. No other group was willing to take this aggressive, bold, uncompromising action. And we continue to do it!

Finally, we documented it all. In 2011, our star researcher, Amy Contrada, published the groundbreaking book, Mitt Romney’s Deception: His Stealth Promotion of “Gay Rights” and “Gay Marriage” in Massachusetts. The book also exposes Romney’s support of LGBT youth programs that most conservatives were unaware of.

Special offer We really need to make this matching fundraising goal by Friday. All donations are really important. Please donate whatever you can! But here’s our special offer: Anyone donating $1,000 or more toward this critical goal will receive a copy of this important book autographed by the author! This will surely be a collector’s item. (You can also buy the book here.) Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454 NOTE: Donations to MassResistance are not tax-deductible. If you need to make a tax-deductible donation that will also go toward this goal, please call our office at 781-890-6001.

Thank you for all your your support. I will continue keeping you informed. THANKS AGAIN! Brian Camenker, President

One of several banners from 2004 - carried by citizens outside the State House and other places across the state. [MassResistance photo]

Romney's infamous "Governor's Commission" in 2005 at the annual "Youth Pride" parade in front of the State House. A MassResistance exposé in 2006 caused him to temporarily disband it. Activists then persuaded the Legislature to make it into a separate state body. [MassResistance photo]

For all recent posts see our website.

ICYMI: How Pro-Family Activists Defeated Gay Marriage Movement in North Carolina (2012)

Lessons from the defeat of "gay marriage" in North Carolina

POSTED: May 15, 2012

The stunning 61-39 percent victory for real marriage in North Carolina -- making it the 32nd state to ban "gay marriage" at the polls -- sent a clear message: Every time Americans vote on "gay marriage" it gets defeated. (Thirty-one states have voted for constitutional amendments on marriage. One state, Maine, voted to reverse a "gay marriage" law passed by their legislature.)

This major NC pro-family website (like many others) also linked to MassResistance's pamphlet "What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts."  Many activists have thanked us for that!

The polls had shown strong support for the amendment. But because Barack Obama won North Carolina in 2008, and the Democrats felt so confident that they scheduled this summer's national convention in Charlotte, the homosexual movement was emboldened to launch an enormous campaign to defeat it. They also got a boost from squishy RINOs who opposed the amendment because of its principled wording.

New strategy of dishonesty by homosexual groups against amendment

The pro-homosexual groups raised nearly 70% more money -- a million dollars -- than the pro-family groups. The mainstream news media was uniformly and aggressively against the amendment. And celebrities like Bill Clinton were doing robo-calls to defeat the measure.

The homosexual lobby took a different approach in North Carolina than we've seen before. Usually they talk tirelessly about "loving gay families," "civil rights," "equal protection," and the like. But this time they took a "scorched earth" approach against the amendment itself by inventing a flood of horrific but patently false reasons why the amendment would be destructive for families in general. They said it will cause suicides by "gay" children, women would be discriminated against, domestic violence victims and senior citizens would be hurt, etc. And they portrayed their side as "pro-family" -- that they were protecting families from a destructive bill.

Deceitful, dishonest TV commercial against Marriage Amendment

Homosexual lobby's "pro-family" website against Marriage Amendment

In fact, none of the things they were warning about have happened in any of the states that passed nearly identical marriage amendments.

It was an extremely devious and deceptive strategy, and they went all out pushing it with media advertising saturating the entire state. Even for a largely religious state like North Carolina it was a daunting onslaught.

Images like this went all over the state.

Squishy pro-gay "conservatives" opposed the strong NC amendment

The wording of the Marriage Amendment is unequivocally "one man and one woman" and does not compromise for political correctness. The amendment bans civil unions, domestic partnerships, or similar phony "marriage" constructs. Here's the wording they voted on:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

As we've seen across the country, squishy pro-gay RINO "conservatives" insist on marriage-like "rights" for homosexuals and actually opposed this amendment.

For example, two nationally prominent "pro-traditional marriage" spokesmen David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt published an article againstthe amendment in the Raleigh newspaper. Posing as conservatives, they said,

"We are native southerners and we oppose legalizing same-sex marriage. . . But as marriage advocates, we oppose the state marriage amendment now being debated in North Carolina. We hope that when North Carolinians go to the polls on May 8 they will defeat this measure. The proposed amendment states that "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." That's a big mouthful, and it goes well beyond the issue of same-sex marriage.

"For one thing, it means that North Carolina could not, now or ever, take any step or devise any policy to extend legal recognition and protection to same-sex couples. No domestic partnership laws. No civil unions. Nothing."

Read entire article HERE

In other words, they are saying that it's fine for the state to force citizens to legally recognize homosexuality and homosexual relationships as legitimate. They just want to protect the word "marriage."

In addition, they'll often claim (without statistical justification) that a "strong" amendment is much harder to pass than a "soft" amendment which allows marriage-like "rights."

Mitt Romney declined to endorse the North Carolina Marriage Amendment, though he didn't give a reason. The media never pressed him on the issue. However, he refused to endorse a nearly identical "strong" Massachusetts amendment in 2002 because, he told the press, it did not allow for homosexual domestic partnerships. In 2004-2005, Gov. Romney lobbied Republican state legislators for a proposed amendment which would have embedded "civil unions" identical to marriage in the state constitution! (That proposal was later voted down.) Then in 2005, Romney endorsed a "soft" marriage amendment in Massachusetts (VoteOnMarriage) which allowed domestic partnerships and civil unions, and would have allowed previous "gay marriages" to stand. (That proposal was also later defeated by the Legislature in 2007.)

Unfortunately, this kind of RINO rhetoric tends to demean conservatives who understand the destructive nature of homosexuality and its related behaviors, and diminish the marriage argument in general. For homosexual activists, civil unions are seen as a sometimes required stepping stone to full-fledged "gay marriage" recognition.

Pro-family grassroots energy not bottled up by political correctnes

Luckily, the pro-family movement put up a strong fight of its own. And it was an interesting dichotomy. Our friend Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, spent a month in North Carolina prior to the election working full time helping mobilize people. He shared some of his observations with us. An important factor was the makeup of the pro-family coalition on the ground. He said that there were two major factions on our side, both of which played important roles.

(1) The mainstream pro-family establishment raised money, gathered political endorsements, promoted the Marriage Amendment, and was generally the public face of the effort. But more important, they produced ads to counter the incredible stream of outrageous lies about the Marriage Amendment that the opposition flooded the airways with.

But like in so many other states, the North Carolina pro-family establishment did not want to talk about homosexuality or homosexual behavior -- only about the word "marriage" and platitudes like "every child needing a mother and father." They insisted on that strategy. But luckily they were completely unable to enforce it among the larger coalition of groups and churches.

(2) The heavy lifting on the ground was done by the churches, both black and white, which played an outstanding role in organizing, energizing, and mobilizing people across the state on this issue. They put an enormous amount of effort into making sure people understood how important this was, and got as many people to the polls as possible.

But in particular, the churches were directly and unapologetically willing to take on the issue of homosexual behavior. The churches refused to be constrained by any "approved talking points" which the mainstream groups tried to impose. The black churches, especially, had no interest in being "politically correct." This helped energize many, many people who might have otherwise not bothered to care about the issue or get involved. 

One black pastor who put in enormous energy (and with whom Peter LaBarbera worked with) is Pastor P.L. Wooden of Raleigh. Pastor Wooden went all over the state debating, evangelizing, and discussing the Marriage Amendment. He was uncompromising in his positions and his discussions of the destructive nature of homosexuality and what it brings to society. Pastor Wooden and very well received wherever he went. It was churchmen like him -- both black and white -- who really carried the day for this amendment. Their points really resonated with people, as opposed to the "sanitized" marriage talking points.

Pastor P.L. Wooden

Lessons to remember:

1. Be prepared for a "scorched earth" strategy by the homosexual lobby. Be ready for a flood of very emotional but extremely dishonest claims of how a ban on "gay marriage" or the legal codifying of homosexual relationships will ruin civilization as we know it -- as the homosexual lobby portrays itself as the true "pro-family" movement. 
2. Don't allow subversion by pro-gay "conservatives." There is a growing threat to the pro-family movement from so-called conservatives who support the concept of homosexual behavior being part of our legal system, and want to protect only the word "marriage". (Unfortunately, this includes presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney and much of the pro-family establishment across the country.)
3. It's ultimately about the behavior. "Telling it like it is" and not caving into political correctness are of paramount importance in these kinds of elections. Platitudes alone do not communicate effectively. "Gay marriage" is ultimately about homosexuality and the homosexual movement -- NOT the word "marriage".

This is a prelude to the other state state marriage battles coming up this fall!

John Cox: We Need a Fighter, Not Mitt Romney!

John Cox and Gavin Newsom have just spoken. Agreed to give voters of this great state the race they deserve. Good conversation. #CAGov pic.twitter.com/rOeCOVTQr8

— Tim Rosales (@TimRosales) June 6, 2018

This is not the tone that is needed in the state of California.

We need fight, fight, fight. That's why grassroots voters got behind Travis Allen. This guy was not afraid to hit hard at Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa

Allen didn't have the money, though, and therefore couldn't get his message out.

What I fear now is that the consultant class will continue to tell Cox to dumb down his conservative credentials and ignore the heartbeat concerns of many voters in the state of California.

During the winning video from the San Diego Union-Tribune, I didn't hear John Cox once mention the fallout of illegal immigration on our state. Yes, we must repeal the gas tax, and very likely that will be repealed in November. Yes, California is unaffordable. Yes, crime is up and the quality of life for residents is way down. The one thread that connects all of this is illegal immigration.

Carl De Maio is on board to fight this scourge which has ruined our state. We need every statewide candidate to do the same. It would be nice to see all five Republican candidates pooling their resources and working as a team.

Greg Conlon won the Top Two for Treasurer, too. Will he do more besides listing his name on the ballot? He needs to do more than just "be there."

I have shifted gears pretty quickly. We need to win the governor's race. We need better leaders in the state of California, who will put the needs of California residents ahead of lawless criminals and illegal aliens. The corruption in the state of California is unfathomable, too.

I don't want to hear nice talk between Newsom and Cox. I want a boxing match!

Another concern I have ...

The consultant class will twist and turn the outcomes and the speeches of Cox and other candidates throughout the state. The consultant class doesn't care about winning or losing. They make big money either way. The rest of us will suffer, however, if we don't get solid leadership in Sacramento.

Right now, Cox doesn't seem to have the fire that we need. He wants to talk numbers and wonky issues. That's all really nice, but going forward we need a pugilist. Will Cox rise to the challenge and fight?

Trump Endorses Mitt Romney: What To Think?

Yesterday, President Trump endorsed one of his most vocal critics in his bid for the United States Senate.

Mitt Romney, who was also endorsed by retiring Orrin Hatch, is seeking to represent the United States Senate for Utah. I am thrilled with this outcome?

Not at all.

But there is a dynamic that we cannot escape when it comes to Utah and the politics of the Beehive State. The voters have never had a strong affinity for President Trump. During the contentious primary, US Senator Ted Cruz swept all the delegates, in spite of poor showings in Arizona down south.

At the general election, Trump won this state with the lowest percentage of all the states: 44%. Whether we like it or not, Utahns are not the biggest fans of Trump, or at least they were not that big on his campaign during the primary. Independent "conservative" Evan McMullin based his abortive, anti-Trump campaign out of Utah, and Gary Johnson did better than expected in this state, as well.

These are not welcome developments for the MAGA agenda if we ignore them.

Republicans already lost a red seat in Alabama. The US Senate majority is really thin at this point, and the last thing that we want is for the Democrats to actually take over the upper chamber in 2018. They only need to flip two more seats and hold onto everything else. The momentum among Democrats over the past four months indicates that Republicans need to tread more carefully than they had done from Inauguration Day until November 2017.

Politics is a numbers game, at the end of the discussion, and we cannot run away from that.

Guy Benson threw up some staggering polling numbers about Romney:

I think Romney has a chance, you guys. pic.twitter.com/pjN6Xx3zoM

— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) January 2, 2018

Do I care for Guy Benson's Never-Trumpism? Nope.

Did I care for Romney's relentless digs on Trump during the primary, the general election, and even after he won?

Not at all.

But guess what? It's not in my hands whether Romney is the Republican nominee for US Senate. That decision does not even belong exclusively to the general population of Utah GOP primary voters at large in the state, either.

Wikipedia summarizes the process below:

Utah candidates for political office have a dual routes toward placement on the primary election ballot: 

(1) eligibility via win or second-place showings at a convention of delegates selected from party local caucuses

(2) eligibility via obtaining sufficient petition signatures. 

Thus, the top two candidates for the U.S. Senate at the party state convention, to be held the latter part of April, are placed on the June 26 primary election ballot, along with any candidates who collects 28,000 ballot-access petition signatures. If no competitors achieves alternate access to the "pure primary" through collected signatures and a convention winner had achieved sixty-percent of delegate votes, this candidate straightaway receives his or her party's nomination solely via the older-style caucuses-convention system. 

The state party will have a nomination convention in April. Tea Party conservative Mike Lee succeeded in this convention in 2010, and more importantly the convention pushed out then-incumbent US Senator Robert Bennett because of his un-conservative votes on taxes, spending, and the big bank bailouts in 2009. These conventions do protect conservative values to a great extent.

Very likely if Romney sweeps that meeting, and there is no other candidate who can get onto the ballot via signatures, then the former governor of Massachusetts and Presidential candidate will the GOP nominee on the ballot for the general election. He has the money, the name ID, and the Establishment backing. While he is not popular nationally with the conservative and MAGA grassroots, Romney is very popular in Mormon dominant Utah. Trump probably senses that he has little pull to stopping Romney-mentum. There are other declared candidates, but will any of them excite enough interest to stop Romney? Who knows.

Let's also realize that Trump and the conservatives who want the MAGA agenda need to work with as many Republicans as possible, and that means we want to see the RNC and other Republican organizations spending money going after Democrats instead of dumping a whole bunch of campaign cash into holding onto red seats.

Trump will not the be the first President to sign onto working with bitter rivals. Abraham Lincoln expressly appointed personal and professional opponents into his cabinet during his first administration. In order to achieve a winning re-election ticket, he nominated a Unionist Democrat as his Vice Presidential candidate. That's what it takes to ensure working majorities for the most of one's agenda.

This is how it works, people. Whether we like Romney or not, it's best for greater intents and purposes to have a Republican with some allegiances to our interests than a Democrat who will spoil the unprecedented Republican mandate which Trump and the GOP has enjoyed in Utah for the last four years.

Keep in mind that Utah is a conservative state regardless, and an elected official from that state will have to comply to an extended extent with the will of those voters, regardless of their background or prior political experience. Trump had worried so many of us conservatives because of his prior record and rhetoric. As President, he's done a pretty phenomenal job. Not only that, but Trump has scored points with Hatch, especially on Trump's executive orders rolling back President Obama's overbearing federal land grabs in national monuments like Bears' Ears National Park.

Perhaps we can look forward to a similar set of welcome surprises from US Senator Mitt Romney, too.

Mitt Romney: Unfit for Higher Office

Former Massachusetts Governor and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney summarily judged Judge Roy Moore to be unfit for office.

Why?

He was accused of numerous, lewd allegations, none of which have panned out or substantiated as true. What kind of kangaroo court is that?

Romney has a cowardly streak to him, something rooted in a chronic sense of slip-ups and failures which could happen at a moment's notice. His father George Romney said that he had been "brainwashed" about Vietnam. An opponent jibed back "A light rinse would have sufficed."

Romney's career was essential over after that. Mitt Romney demonstrates the same kind of internal struggles that his father had fought with. So desperate to look strong before the media, Mitt would go out of his way to play to their demands. He would talk about women, he refused to be tough. He had no interest in fighting against corruption, lies, and fraud. He just saw himself going into the political thick of things because it was his duty to do so.

We need men and women of heart to fight against the Washington DC entanglement of corruption and anti-American lies. We need more than a few well-connected politicos looking to make a big name for themselves are go through the motions to appease the base but do nothing to help anyone.

Judge Moore enjoys the same presumption of innocence before any guilty verdict is rendered. It's unbelievable how swiftly the DC GOP Establishment rushed into to put this guy out to pasture as soon as the press slandered him. The Washington Post puts together one story, details the accounts of four women, yet only one of them was underage to begin with--and there is no other evidence that Moore had any contact with any of them to begin with.

So, the former leader of the Republican Party, in the sense that he was the GOP Presidential nominee in 2012, has demonstrated considerably bad judgment.

Where has he been on the allegations against George Herbert Walker Bush? What about Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey? The media has remained silent about the senior US Senator and the massive corruption charges against him, and Romney goes along for the ride? He just shouts "Fire!" when the Washington Post writes about conflagrations in the personal life of one person. But not the other?

Where are Romney's comments demanding the removal of US Senator Al Franken, of whom there is clear, documented proof that he groped a woman, who was asleep at the time! This is sickening. There is actual proof of sexual assault against Franken, but Romney says nothing?!

The truth is, Romney doesn't want strong conservatives who fight for victory. He wants limp-wristed RINOs who get along to go along, and allow the rich classes, whether on the left or right side of the political aisle, to have their way. This is wrong. The United States of America is for all Americans. Political connections begin and end with the individual citizens, not political corruption and cronyism.

Yet Romney is more interested in controlled failure. He is more interested in losing "gracefully" than getting a little dirty in the fight for what is right.

Here are my final thoughts on Romney, and why he--not Judge Roy Moore--is unfit for office:

Because @MittRomney immediately charged, declared @MooreSenate guilty based on nothing but specious claims, but has said nothing about @AlFranken who has committed sexual assault, and said nothing about @SenatorMenendez who was charged with corruption, Romney is unfit for office. pic.twitter.com/gnOu5W3tze

— Arthur C. Schaper (@ArthurCSchaper) November 20, 2017

Trump Beat Romney in Deep-Blue California Cities: How?

The Sacramento Bee did their exhaustive study on how well Donald Trump did in all California cities compared to Mitt Romney in 2012.

Trump did worse than Romney in a larger number of otherswise strongly Republican areas.

But in the most unlikely cities, Trump actually exceeded Romney.

Here's the metric to explain how the chart was laid out:

Now check out the cities where Trump exceeded Romney:

Let's start with the first city of note, in part because I had attended a town hall in that city last weekend:

Inglewood.

Inglewood California is a decent microcosm of the political cancer that is eating out California. The city was a wellspring of growth and development. Barry Goldwater actually won Inglewood, even though he lost the rest of the state and 46 others.

Then came the busing, the racially-charged policies of welfarism and government dependence. Crime became the norm, and “white flight” undermined the communities. A large phalanx of the Democracy began running this plantation—although Republican Gordon Hahn, uncle of Aunt Janice and former LA Mayor James Hahn—represented Inglewood in the state assembly in the early 1960s.

Democrats are the norm, and Republicans just stay quiet, if there are any. 

Yet notice that in Inglewood, Trmp did better, even though the Republican registration is abysmally low. Granted we are looking at Republican registration dipping below 10%.

But notice that the share of the vote is signficantly larger, especially for Compton. It's as though every single Republican decided to step out and vote for Trump.

Even in Oakland, Trump did slightly better.

Why?

Here are few reasons, starting with the most likely, and the moving to more speculative reasons:

1. These three cities are well-known black urban areas. The one issue which resonated with many Democratic voters was immigration. The problems with illegal immigration, the undercutting of wages and jobs, and the high crimes rates in urban areas all impact black communities disproportionately.

2. Since these liberal cities are progressive bastions pushing the Democratic Party to the left, Bernie voters in larger numbers might have voted for Trump out of pure rebellion against the Democratic nominee Crooked Hillary Clinton. A progressive Democratic voter in Colorado did the same thing, and she received a featured editorial in Politico.

3. The high crime rates, unemployment, and moral degredation have hit the community so hard, that slowly but surely they are walking off the Democratic Plantation and willing to try a Republican Presidential candidate. After all, Trump told disenfranchised voters "What do you have to lose?"

If Republicans want to win big in blue cities, they need to pay attention to the above issues--and not hold back!

The 2016 Autopsy of the 2012 GOP Autopsy Report

Election 2012 was a devastating setback for the Republican Party. The more conservative party of our two-party system was supposed to go into Election 2012 with real chances for winning key US Senate seats as well as holding onto the House majority and taking back the White House from the epically deplorable Barack "Obamacare" Obozo.

But that did not happen.

Instead, the Democratic Party held onto winnable US Senates and even gained two seats, including conservative Indiana! What is wrong with this picture? What happened to the fighting Romney from the first debate, who then squished during the second debate and got flattened completely during the final debate on foreign policy?

I must admit that I was not excited about Mitt Romney. I could not understand how a candidate with such a blue record, including his baseline support for government mandates in health care during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts, would make him somehow palatable as the front-runner then nominee. He was another candidate in a long line of Republican insiders who wanted to make nice with the opposing side, as long as Big Business got their corporate tax cuts and welfare, bailouts and open borders.

Voters across the country want fighters, not flighters. They want men and women who will stand up and stump for their values, and not just think about who their next donors will be and doing whatever they want. Romney was not the candidate for us, someone who tired off the base and could not appeal to voters outside of the GOP mainstream.

Is this truly the fate of the Republican Party?

Terrible.

So, the Republican Party suffered a sad set-back. The RNC leadership got busy looking at what went wrong.

Their report also known as the "GOP Autopsy" generated the following main points, according to Talking Points Memo:

1. Pass Immigration Reform Yesterday

Normally the RNC's focus is more on infrastructure and staff than policy, which is left to politicians to chart. But the party's standing with Latino voters has gotten so dangerously low that the RNC's report openly begs Republicans to change their position in defiance of the party's own 2012 platform.

In other words: "Hispandering"

Byron York ran the numbers on Election 2013. Even if Romney had won the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Barack Obama. Romney still would have lost. Why? Because the white vote did not vote. Simple as that.

"We are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond, must be to embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform," the report read. "If we do not, our Party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only."

There's also a dig at Romney and his hard-line position on immigration in a section referencing one of his most famous lines. Per the report: "If Hispanic Americans perceive that a GOP nominee or candidate does not want them in the United States (i.e. self-deportation), they will not pay attention to our next sentence."

Does anyone noticed how bigoted and narrow-minded those phrases sound? Do these operatives believe that Hispanics in this country are all illegal aliens? That is very prejudices sentiment.

And it was wrong.

2. Listen To Minorities

Much of the report is about encouraging Republicans to listen not just to Republican minorities, but to reach out to black, Hispanic, and Asian American voters in their own communities. The reason: arithmetic.

Donald Trump did that and then some.

He had a great reception, especially in Michigan, when he went to Detroit, Michigan.

Whether the latest effort will make a difference is an open question, but Priebus has signalled it will be a top priority. He's already committed $10 million to minority outreach as an initial display of his seriousness.

Priebus did an excellent job of reaching out to different groups.

But Trump's appeal was based on more than class warfare or ethnic hatred.

3. Gays Aren't Going Away

It's not a coincidence that more Republicans are endorsing gay marriage: gay rights has gone from a wedge issue against Democrats in 2004 to a topic President Obama actively highlighted in his 2012 campaign.

The RNC's report doesn't come out for marriage equality, but it warns that the party needs to move left on gay issues, not so much because gays are an important voting bloc, but because intolerance scares off other groups of voters, too.

This is a bad idea. In fact, pro-family conservatives have become more mobilized, recognizing the crucial necessity to make the case for the family and for life.

It's important to note that the LGBT activists are demonstrating to the world that they are the ones who are intolerant and hateful, trying to stifle freedom of speech ad religion.

The 2016 RNC platform is an excellent, very conservative platform which rejects the gay marriage decision from the Supreme Court and supports reparative therapy for minors and adults who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender identity concerns. The Republican Party cannot be a force for good if they abandon Judeo-Christian values. Even the centrist Charles Krauthammer reminded his audience that this country does not need two liberal parties.

4. Epistemic Closure Is Real

There's been a long running debate on the intellectual right about whether the GOP suffers from "epistemic closure," a condition in which conservatives block out all dissenting voices until eventually their own arguments sound nonsensical to anyone who doesn't already agree with them. The RNC report concludes this is a real and growing problem.

What the Republican Party needs to do is appeal to better arguments than tradition alone.

We need to remember when the nuclear family is important: One Father, one mother, and raising children. We need capitalize on the technological advances which have revealed to millions the miracle of life within the mother's womb. More Millennials are pro-life than they have ever been before,

We need to make this case on other cultural issues, including the blessed stasis of gender as well as identity based on truth, not feelings.

"The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself," its authors write. "We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue. Instead of driving around in circles on an ideological cul-de-sac, we need a Party whose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us."

Absolutely. Thank goodness for conservatives like Ben Shapiro and even Milo Yiannopoulos who have the courage to take on university left-wing autarchy to strike out for principles in line with classic learning and mainstream reality.

The autopsy also recognized that the obsession with Ronald Reagan is turning into a liability, not an asset. He cannot serve as the example and testimony for every Republican candidate. WaPo's Jennifer Rubin had a point: "Tear Down This Icon!".

With this remark, I could not agree more. 

Ronald Reagan is dead, folks. This country is facing unparalleled challenges on different fronts, and none of them are the Soviet Union.

Donald Trump is better than Reagan. He is not dancing around the issue of amnesty or making illegal immigration easier. He is fighting back and kicking butt. He has a different rhetoric flourish and aura about, more shock and awe than shake-and-bake.

And it's just what this country needed.

5. Look To The States

The RNC report makes a careful distinction between federal Republicans -- bad! -- and state Republicans -- good! The GOP currently holds 30 governorships and many of them, like Chris Christie in New Jersey and John Kasich in Ohio, have been both moving to the center and gaining in popularity recently. They stand in stark contrast to House Republicans, who have more conservative constituencies and typically have been more inflexible in their views.

This is another massive fail.

Republican Governors in the states have been (for the most part) effective for the following reasons:

1. They have Republican legislative majorities at their fingertips. They have more willing partners in the legislative process to accomplish their agendas. In Congress, the Republican House was on its own against the Democratic US Senate and the Democratic President.

Any House rep would look "took conservative" precisely because they were fighting for their values rather than accepting the Democratic talking points. After all, most of those Republicans flooded in from Election 2010, a major backlash to Obama's progressive monomania.

Furthermore, the states have to live within their means. They cannot print money. They cannot endlessly borrow, either. They also have to deal with stricter elements of competition from surrounding states, or pay the consequences: fleeing businesses, fewer jobs, lost revenue and population growth.

States must balance their budgets at the end of the fiscal year, and they are pushed against the wall to seek every means possible to demonstrate fiscal prudence of some kind. 

"Republican governors are America's reformers in chief," the report reads. "They continue to deliver on conservative promises of reducing the size of government while making people's lives better. They routinely win a much larger share of the minority vote than GOP presidential candidates, demonstrating an appeal that goes beyond the base of the Party."

They connect with voters. They have to, since the  media markets are too small. The governorships have now expanded to 33, including deep blue Illinois and Maryland, as well as Massachusetts (although Charlie Baker has turned into a RINO Faker.)

6. Stop Being The Rich Guys

Wrong advice, at least the way that it's framed. The real issue is "Stopping being distant elitists."

Trump pushed away any concerns about that. He was not afraid to take charge, to ruffle feathers, to mock reporters and liberal dissidents. He was also unabashedly proud to be an American, and showed sincere, probing care for the American worker decimated by bad trade deals and illegal immigration.

So, where did the RNC autopsy go wrong in particular?

Let's consider the key sources behind this report? Rich people looking to stay rich, even if it meant illiberal policies hurting the country, perhaps? The study sessions with key voters of all demographics and backgrounds was not the wisest approach, either.

The people who shared their views about the Republican Party where getting their ideas and opinions from the media. Anyone who knows or recognizes how the mainstream media operates, they know that they are biased against conservative and Republican views. 

For the Republican Party, the bigger problem has been the news, the biased national and social medias. The conservatives have to focus on the pillars and major institutions in our society. It's time to shape opinion rather than imitate or respond to it.

Of course, there was no discussion about this fundamental problem in our culture, which has thankfully been exposed by the efforts of Breitbart, Townhall, Daily Caller, and YoungCons. Donald Trump has been the premier opponent and victor against the corrupt media, fully exposing their left-wing madness and shaming them with their own tools. He drives the media narrative now, and has put the media out to pasture.

Final Reflection

Republicans need to embrace, not refrain from embracing, their values.

They need to stop pandering to groups by abandoning their principles.

Instead of accommodating the culture, it's time to confront the decay and attacks against Western Judeo-Christian values.

Donald Trump pushed away the snide self-examination of the RNC and fulfilled a true commitment to conservative principles. He did it by attacking the real source of the anti-conservative rot: the corrupt media.

And he won.

Ironically, for the GOP to follow the RNC woud have lead to a real autopsy for the party. By ignoring the flawed and failing report, the GOP is stronger than ever, while the Democratic Party has been decimated at the state and local level as well as in Washington DC.