Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

REPOSTED HERE FOR WIDER DISSEMINATION

It is my opinion that Governor Maura Healy should be incarcerated for knowingly violating her oath of office.  Further, the State Police should not comply with any directives coming from the governor's office that of and in themselves are clearly unjustifiable (unjust laws are no laws).  I am a firm believer of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; without which there would be no confederation of the United States of America. ~ N.E. Hooben 

Neighbor News

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

Ronald Beaty

Posted Fri, Nov 15, 2024 

Massachusetts State House

Governor Maura Healey: A Defiant Stance or a Legal Quagmire?

In the politically charged arena of immigration policy, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey's recent declarations have sparked a significant debate on the balance between state autonomy and federal jurisdiction. While some laud her for standing up for sanctuary policies, a closer legal and ethical scrutiny reveals a tangled web of potential legal violations, challenging the very fabric of constitutional governance.

**The Sanctuary Conundrum**

Governor Healey's firm refusal to involve state police in what could be the largest deportation effort in American history, as proposed by President-elect Donald Trump, is emblematic of a broader pushback against federal immigration enforcement. This stance, while popular in certain circles, raises critical legal questions. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause dictates that federal law trumps conflicting state actions. By choosing not to assist or even obstruct federal immigration enforcement, Healey might be skating on thin legal ice.

**Legal Violations: A Closer Look**


1. **Obstruction of Federal Law Enforcement:**
- Healey's directive to state police to not assist in federal deportation efforts could be interpreted as obstructing justice, specifically under 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which penalizes the harboring or shielding of undocumented immigrants from detection. While not directly harboring, her policy stance aids in creating an environment where undocumented immigrants might feel shielded from federal action, potentially fitting the legal definition of obstruction.

2. **Interference with Federal Authority:**
- The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution ensures that federal law prevails over state law when there is a conflict. Healey's policies could be seen as an attempt to override federal immigration law by creating a state-sanctioned sanctuary environment, which directly conflicts with federal directives on immigration enforcement.

3. **Conspiracy to Violate Immigration Laws:**
- If there's coordinated action among state officials to systematically thwart federal immigration enforcement, this could elevate to a charge of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute doesn't require the act itself to be illegal but criminalizes an agreement to commit an offense against the United States. By aligning state policy with non-cooperation, there's a plausible case that state officials are in conspiracy to obstruct federal law enforcement.

4. **Misuse of State Resources:**

- Utilizing state resources to counteract federal immigration policies might veer into the territory of misappropriation of public funds. If state funds are being used to support or shelter undocumented immigrants in ways that explicitly or implicitly aim to bypass or resist federal law enforcement, this could be scrutinized under state laws concerning the use of public resources.


**Political and Ethical Considerations**

Healey's stance isn't merely a legal issue but also a deeply political and ethical one. Critics argue that by choosing a path of non-cooperation:

- **She undermines the rule of law** by allowing state policy to dictate how federal law is enforced within Massachusetts, potentially setting a precedent for further state-level defiance.

- **There's a risk to public safety**; while the focus is on non-violent immigrants, this policy could inadvertently shield those with criminal records from federal scrutiny, potentially endangering residents.

- **This creates a patchwork of enforcement** across the country, where one's legal status might depend more on the state of residence than on federal law, leading to a fragmented national policy approach.

**A Call for Clarity and Compliance**


The essence of federalism is the balance between state innovation and national unity under the law. While states have the right to set priorities, they do not have carte blanche to ignore federal mandates. Here's where Governor Healey must tread carefully:

- **Legal Compliance**: Healey should ensure her policies align with federal law or face legal challenges that could drain state resources in court battles.

- **Transparency**: If state policies are designed to protect certain groups, this should be communicated transparently, not as a covert operation to circumvent federal enforcement.

- **Public Safety**: Any policy should consider the broader implications on public safety, ensuring that state actions do not inadvertently compromise the security of its citizens.

- **Federal Dialogue**: Engaging with federal authorities to discuss immigration enforcement in a manner that respects state concerns while upholding federal law could mitigate legal risks.


In conclusion, while Maura Healey's policies might resonate with those advocating for immigrant rights, they walk a fine line between state rights and legal obligations. Her actions, if unchecked or unaddressed legally, could set a precedent that challenges the very structure of federal law enforcement authority. For the integrity of our legal system, and for the sake of maintaining a coherent national policy, it's imperative that we address these issues head-on. The balance between state autonomy and federal supremacy must be maintained, or we risk a legal and political fragmentation that could undermine the constitutional framework we all hold dear.

Governor Healey's approach, while bold, invites a critical examination of where the limits of state action lie, prompting us to ask not just what is politically favorable, but what is legally tenable in our shared constitutional republic.

Ronald Beaty

Senator Schumer’s hypocritical rant.

If I may borrow a quote from Rush Limbaugh, I would sum up my opinion of Schumer with this: 

"What Chuck Schumer did on the floor of the Senate today is so unprofessional, “outrageous” doesn’t even cover it." Rush Limbaugh - Oct 5, 2017

11.12.2024

Majority Leader Schumer Floor Remarks On The Outcome Of 2024 Election And The Path Forward

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) today spoke on the Senate floor on the importance of bipartisan cooperation to get things done following the 2024 election. Below are Senator Schumer’s remarks, which can also be viewed here:

One week ago, a near-record number of Americans carried on the grand tradition of voting in a national election, and of passing the torch peacefully.

There are many things we can say about what happened last Tuesday. It was not the result many of us wanted.

But we live in a democracy, where the will of the people is respected and followed. And the American people have spoken.

I congratulate President-elect Trump on his victory, and I look forward to speaking with him soon.

And I congratulate Vice President Harris and Governor Walz for running a historic campaign. They can be proud of the incredible work their team has done over the last four months.

The values Vice President Harris ran on will live on: individual freedom, opportunity for all, and working together to build a safer, stronger nation.

And, for those of us who have been given the honor of representing the people of our states, we look forward to serving, to governing, to working in principled and bipartisan fashion, to reward the trust the American people have placed in us.

Now, to my fellow Democrats across America, it’s natural and appropriate to feel deep disappointment, grief, and even anger in this moment.

I understand those feelings. It never feels good to come up short, but when you do, you get up, you dust yourself off, you learn, and prepare to do better in the future.

You study what occurred. We will do that.

You listen to what voters are saying, and you find ways to make government responsive to those wants and desires, those dreams, those needs. And you also take the approval of the voters from the places we each represent, those voters who sent us back to the Senate, and carry forth the principles we campaigned on—and we won on. And you find ways to put those principles into practice as much as possible, while finding ways to work in a bipartisan fashion to get things done.

As I’ve told my caucus this week, we should regard this election not merely as a defeat but more importantly as a challenge. The American people have presented us with a challenge and we must answer the call. We have to look at what we did right, what we did wrong, and what we didn’t do but should have done.

First, we have to look at what we did right and continue to pursue those goals. Many of our Senate colleagues, after all, are returning to the Senate despite facing strong headwinds. I’ll say more about that in a moment.

Second, we have to understand the things we did wrong and how we must change.

Third, we have to look at what we didn’t do, but should have done.

We’ll have these important and necessary conversations in due course—and everyone must have a seat at the table. We must be honest. We must be practical. And we must never abandon our roots that have defined the Democratic Party for generations.

To Democrats who were around back in 2004, remember the grief we felt back then. It was also a tough election for sure. But what happened afterwards?

We got back to work to regain the trust of the American people. I was proud to be part of that process as chair of the DSCC. And just two years later, the tide turned in a dramatic way.

Finally, before I turn to the Senate, let me say this: I hope that after last week we can put to rest the fantasy of stolen elections and rigged outcomes.

Four years ago, the losing side refused to accept the will of the people, and it led to a violent insurrection at the US Capitol. This year, we will not go down that dark and violent path.

Now, let me go on to the Senate.

Last Tuesday brought a mix of success and disappointment for Senate Democrats. In the final analysis we hoped for a better result. As happens from time to time, control of this chamber will change from one party to the other.

To Senator Brown and Senator Tester: we could not be prouder of the races you ran. More importantly, we could not be prouder of the legacy you have built here in the United States Senate. You are some of the finest people I’ve ever worked with in this chamber. To both of you I say thank you. Job well done. Job well done.

I’ve spoken to both Senators Tester and Brown a couple of times this past week, and they’re not ones to get down on themselves.

They’re going to be just fine, and they’ll continue to do great things for their home states and for our country. But I feel for the people of Montana and Ohio, who will now lose two incredible leaders.

To Senators Rosen and Baldwin, we are thrilled you are coming back for another term, despite all the headwinds and obstacles you faced back home.

In fact, despite a difficult year for Democrats, four of our most contested seats will remain in the hands of Democrats. And in one other state, the votes are still being counted.

Let me repeat that: despite a difficult year for Democrats, which everyone predicted would be a place where we lost all of our seats almost, despite that, four of the most contested seats will remain in Democratic hands: Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin. And as I said, the votes in one more state are still being counted.

Donald Trump won all those states. But so did our Democratic colleagues and colleagues to-be.

Winning four Senate seats from the nation’s tightest swing states does not happen on its own. It’s a testament to the incredible work Senate Democrats have done in this chamber to benefit the American people.

With Democrats in the Majority, the United States Senate had its most successful and productive years in decades.

Under our watch, this chamber became a place where we got big things done.

We passed bold legislation that lifted America out of crisis, rebuilt our economy, and invested in good paying jobs.

We passed the American Rescue Plan. The bipartisan infrastructure bill. The Chips and Science Act. We took care of our veterans. We defended Ukraine. We protected marriage equality. We passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which has done more to improve the environment than any other act, and also lowered the cost of prescription drugs. And we did so much more.

These accomplishments will continue to pay off for years and decades to come.

And I’m proud that the vast majority of our accomplishments were done in a bipartisan fashion.

As a result, many of our incumbents are coming back despite a tough year, and multiple swing seats will remain with Democrats.

Now, to my newly elected Democratic colleagues from across the country, I extend a welcoming hand. I met with these new members just now in my office. We’re excited to get to work. We’re excited you’re joining our caucus.

Now, let me turn to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Another closely-contested election now comes to an end.


To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith: take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship.

After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it’s consistently backfired on the party in power.

So instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan.

If we want in the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation.

Democrats will be ready to do what we have consistently done: work with both sides when the opportunity arises.

Democrats will never abandon our values, but neither will we reject the opportunity to move the ball forward to make people’s lives better when we can.

The question is now whether or not Republicans are willing to do the same. To my colleagues on the other side, once again: do not abandon bipartisanship. It’s the best and most effective way to get things done.

It was true in the last four years, and will be true in the years to come.

Finally, let me end with this: for millions of Americans, particularly those on this side of the aisle, this is a difficult moment.

But as John F Kennedy once said, “let us not despair but act.”

Let us not despair but act. Let us not give up on the dream that is America.

Instead, let us do what those who came before us have always done. Let us persevere. Let us persist.

Let us get to work.

Senator Charles Schumer threatens
U.S. Supreme Court justices.

If you think that Chuck Schumer has your interest at heart, think again.  Here's where his interests are:

Top contributors

Contributor	Total	Individuals	PACs
Goldman Sachs	$707,228	$654,228	$53,000
Paul, Weiss et al	$686,868	$686,868	$0
Citigroup Inc	$576,369	$523,553	$52,816
Blackstone Group	$519,266	$496,266	$23,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$411,824	$346,824	$65,000
Deloitte LLP	$394,609	$336,610	$57,999
NextEra Energy	$383,775	$366,275	$17,500
Morgan Stanley	$383,451	$336,005	$47,446
Sullivan & Cromwell	$376,765	$376,765	$0
KKR & Co	$361,771	$345,771	$16,000
Lazard Ltd	$355,650	$355,650	$0
Ernst & Young	$348,580	$306,580	$42,000
PricewaterhouseCoopers	$315,575	$267,576	$47,999
Related Companies	$311,880	$311,880	$0
New York Life Insurance	$309,158	$262,158	$47,000
UBS AG	$306,188	$254,188	$52,000
Neuberger Berman LLC	$305,000	$305,000	$0
Credit Suisse Group	$299,443	$249,774	$49,669
Corning Inc	$290,181	$265,181	$25,000
Lockheed Martin	$285,763	$243,763	$42,000

Now would be a good time to do away with party politics.

Isn't it about time we started thinking like our Founding Fathers? 

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution" - President John Adams 

" However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. " - President George Washington   Farewell Address | Saturday, September 17, 1796

And bringing us up to date the following essay should be incorporated into every school's curriculum such that today's students would be prepared to fight the dangers of party politics.

Credit for the following ~ Stuart McClain 

There were no Republicans in Franklin’s day, so no. However let’s look at what Franklin believed in, and what Republicans believe in.

Smaller government yup, Franklin did not believe in big government, neither do Republicans.

Antislavery, check, both Franklin and the Republicans are anti slavery.

Views on federal government’s role, check, just like the Republicans Franklin believed that government’s role was to safe guard individual liberties, it does not grant them. He believed that the power ought to rest with the states. Though he did not think central government ought to be weak, it ought to be restrained.

Views on business. He was a federalist, which means he supported business and commerce, which were huge reasons behind the Revolutionary War.

Liberty. Although the Democrats are known here and now as liberals, in the 1700’s liberalism was understood to be something else entirely, something that fits Republican ideals to a “T”. In the rest of the world the Republicans would be seen as liberals, here in America though that term has become synonymous with Progressivism, which in reality is what the Democrats have become. And it is a very different thing than traditional liberalism. Franklin’s views as a Federalist would have fallen very much in line with the Republicans on liberty. He famously said something to the effect of those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither.

There are certain things Franklin would have more in common with Democrats, but over all I think he would have far more in common with Republicans.

Oftentimes the Republicans views are presented in a skewed manner by progressives. For instance Republicans were the first to support women’s suffrage, full citizenship, equal rights, and voting privileges for blacks. They were the first to promote environmental protections. It was under Republicans that women were first appointed to powerful positions, for instance Sandra Day O’Connor, and Jean Kirkpatrick. They commissioned the first audit of Congress to hold them accountable. And they accomplished the first clean up of Civil Service, something which really needs to happen again, if anything needs reforming it is Civil Service, it has way too much power for people who have never been elected to anything. They improved Medicare, planned balanced budgets.

They are portrayed as the opposite of who they are by the left. In fact if you asked most people that vote Democrat what they thought about or which party did something without telling them who said or did it most of the time they would find themselves in agreement with the Republicans.

______________

It has been said that we may have lost the battle for independence without the likes of Benjamin Franklin. So isn't it time we had the mindset of those that set us free. Washington, Adams, and Franklin; they fought so we wouldn't have to. ~ Storm'n Norm'n 

Meet historical fascism’s true heirs.

 

Fascists All the Way Down 

Meet historical fascism’s true heirs.

November 4, 2024 by Bruce Thornton 40 Comments

Newsletter

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

In the famous anecdote usually attributed to Bertrand Russell, a scientist lecturing on the earth’s position in the solar system is corrected by an old lady who says the earth is actually supported by a giant turtle. When the scientist asked what supports the turtle, she triumphally answered, “It’s turtles all the way down!”

Since the Twenties and the rise of Italian Fascism and German Nazism––which eventually become the main referent of the word––the term has become an all-purpose question-begging epithet so promiscuously abused in the Thirties that, as George Orwell said in 1944, “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies something not desirable.”

As the word’s use by progressives and leftists––at this point synonyms for “Democrats”––have shown for decades, their understanding of conservatism’s principles and tenets is limited to the infinite regression of “fascists all the way down.” In this election season, they are binging 24/7 on “fascists” with plenty of “Hitlers” thrown in to ratchet up the evil quotient with evocations of genocide and the horrors of the death camps.

The problem is not just the blatant abuse of history, truth, and language, which since ancient Athens has been a habit typical of representative governments that give widely diverse citizens freedom of speech. The more pertinent and dangerous point about this misuse of “fascist” as a political smear is that it obscures how much American progressivism has in common with historical fascism––an oversight made worse by the left’s assumption that conservativism and capitalism are ideologically and organically fascist, and thus profoundly more unjust and dangerous than socialism and other forms of statism.

In reality, as Jonah Goldberg explained in his 2008 book Liberal Fascism, fascism is a phenomenon of the left, not the right––an “inconvenient truth,” Goldberg writes, “if ever there was one.” This confusion about fascism’s origins is furthered by the misleading Manichean contrast the left makes between fascism and communism, a consequence of Hitler’s 1941 invasion of Soviet Russia, his erstwhile ally, that ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement of 1939.

In fact, as Goldberg shows, “they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents, seeking to control and dominate the same social space,” a space opened up by secularism and the decline of Christianity, which both ideologies denigrated and dismissed; and by Enlightenment scientism that promoted the technocratic management of society, the economy, and government, and promised to create a material earthly paradise. Moreover, both shared, along with American progressivism, the belief that “the era of liberal democracy was drawing to a close,” that it was time to abandon “the anachronisms of natural law, traditional religion, constitutional liberty, capitalism and the like: God was long dead, and it was long overdue for men to take His place.”

As Goldberg goes on to document, historical fascism indeed had much in common with American progressivism, and their shared notions that political, social, and economic “experiments” conducted by rational technocrats––“experts” liberated from traditional religions superstitions, dogmas, and customs––could correct the injustices and inefficiencies created by laissez-faire capitalism and rampant individualism. Then the utopia of “equity” and “social justice,” as our “woke” progressives put it, would blossom.

Let me emphasize that Goldberg’s point is not that progressives are fascists, but that the shared assumptions behind much of progressive politics and historical fascism need to be identified and their implications for individual freedom acknowledged and confronted.

A particularly significant affinity between progressivism and fascism can be seen in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s aggressive expansion of the federal state by means of New Deal policies that reestablished the intellectual continuity of liberal ideals with those of fascism in the Twenties and Thirties, which accounts for the mutual admiration among Mussolini, Hitler, and Roosevelt evident everywhere before Hitler’s military aggression began to manifest itself in 1939.

The New Deal in particular––that revered icon of modern progressives––“was conceived at the climax of a worldwide fascist moment,” Goldberg writes, a time when nationalism and socialism coalesced and the yearning for lost community became the rationale for increasing state power. “As a consequence of Roosevelt’s policies, today we live with the fruits of fascism, and we call them liberal. From economic policy, to populist politics, to a faith in the abiding power of brain trusts to chart our collective future––be they at Harvard or on the Supreme Court––fascistic assumptions about the role of the state have been encoded upon the American mind, often as a matter of bipartisan consensus.”

The Sixties was another “fascist” moment in our history: “Politically, the glamorized cult of violence evident in groups like the Black Panthers and the Weathermen likewise derived from fascistic idealizations of ‘men of action’ like Mussolini, who called his brand of socialism ‘the greatest act of negation and destruction.’”

Indeed, much of the baleful legacy of the Sixties, from the smarmy “politics of meaning” to the worship of callow youthful “idealism” and spurious “authenticity” found in anarchic violence finds its antecedents in the fascism of the Twenties. More recently, the 2020 “summer of love” riots, arson, and assaults produced and directed by Black Lives Matter and Antifa are examples of this malign dynamic.

The Sixties also marked the increased growth in the technocratic Leviathan state and its vast expansion of federal agencies staffed by “experts” who usurp the lawmaking powers of Congress in order to aggrandize and politicize power for one party at the expense of the citizens’ rights and freedom.

As Goldberg writes, “Lyndon Johnson called it the ‘Great Society,’ which in Johnson’s own telling, ‘rests on abundance and liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty and racial injustice,’ and is a place ‘where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect,’ where ‘the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community.’”

As a consequence of such progressive policies, fascistic statist assumptions today most obviously impact our lives in economic policy. Despite the liberal lie that big business is inherently fascist, Goldberg writes that “if you define ‘right-wing’ or conservative in the American sense of supporting the rule of law and the free market, then the more right-wing business is, the less fascist it becomes.” The “Third Way” economic policies that want the heavy hand of the state involved in the free-market economy is closer to traditional fascism, which was a populist movement frequently railing against big business and blood-sucking corporations.

Today, the devil’s bargain accepted by big business basically allows corporations to make their huge profits as long as they go along with the government’s political program––with the added bonus that the metastasizing government regulations furthering that social agenda are affordable for big businesses, but often ruinous for smaller ones.

Thus, today we see big corporations and social media firms eagerly embracing the “woke” Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity nostrums, making themselves into what Goldberg calls “government by proxy.” We saw this during the Biden administration when social media colluding with the Executive branch and security agencies in order to abrogate the First Amendment rights of anyone challenging or criticizing government policies.

These, of course, are carried out in the name of the same utopian promises made by the bloodiest tyrannies of the 20th century, yet continue to comprise the policies of progressive Democrats down to the Biden administration–– and Kamala Harris’ proposed policies to tax, print, borrow, and redistribute trillions of dollars to political clients, as well as expanding the intrusive regulatory state and its scores of entitlement programs, many of which, like Social Security and Medicare, are dangerously close to bankruptcy.

Finally, the choice in this election is not between cartoon “fascists,” but historical fascism’s true heirs, who for a century have been assaulting the Constitution to dismantle its guardrails that protect our unalienable rights and freedom to manage our lives according to our own lights, rather than submitting to tyranny.

Bruce Thornton

Bruce S. Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, an emeritus professor of classics and humanities at California State University, Fresno, and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is Democracy’s Dangers and Discontents: The Tyranny of the Majority from the Greeks to Obama.

Reader Interactions