"One Man, One Vote" Obliterates Counties as a Political Unit

The more radical the Democratic party becomes, the more ways they look to fix elections. One only has to look to North Carolina to see the latest tactics employed by activists. This is a battleground state and all is fair game to these people, including the rule of law. Democrats went so far as to employ District Court judges to introduce a “special master” that redrew federal and state congressional districts, which is a completely lawless act. Since that didn’t work, they are now introducing bills to amend our constitution. Here is an excerpt from the Civitas Institute:

It seems that vain hope springs eternal, because just such a bill has been referred to the NC House Committee on Redistricting. Senate Bill 641 would enshrine a redistricting commission in the NC Constitution and change the constitution’s rules for redistricting. Its primary sponsors are Ashton Wheeler Clemmons (D – Guilford), John Autry (D – Mecklenburg), Allison A. Dahle (D – Wake), and Charles Graham (D – Robeson). The redistricting proposal is one part of a bigger wish list of liberal changes to North Carolina’s elections contained in the bill, which has also been presented in the House as H574.

There are no Republicans among the House bill’s 17 sponsors, a sign that it has no chance of becoming law this session. Still, it does offer insight into what may happen if Democrats are able to win majorities in the General Assembly in the 2020 elections.

When Democrats introduce a bill, we must pay close attention to its language. As of now, the law declares senate districts must be contiguous and that counties cannot be divided. The language in the Democrat’s bill simply states this is merely a goal. That should ring alarm bells.

Their stated goal is the anti-republican mantra of “One man, one vote.” In other words, urban domination of the state of North Carolina and the obliteration of counties as a political unit. Here is NCpedia’s definition of a county:

A county, as a defined geographic subdivision of the state, serves many purposes. Churches, civic clubs, and other societal institutions use counties as convenient subdivisions for their own purposes. The business world may assign sales territories and franchises to areas composed of one or more counties. The county may play a role in the psychology of people born and raised "in the country" - it serves to establish where they are from and who they are, thus becoming a part of their personal identity. But the county was created in the first instance by the state as a political unit, and this remains its primary purpose.

The Democratic party is using “One man, one vote” to run roughshod over age-old political boundaries such as counties. Their main constituents live in big cities whose values contradict, or are outright hostile to rural citizens. In order to dominate this state, they must obliterate conservative strongholds. They will do this by employing unelected and unaccountable “special masters” who’ll redraw congressional districts.

The end result: small towns will become subservient to large urban areas. They will lose their voice in the halls of Congress and our General Assembly. That is the goal of “One man, one vote.”

Source:

https://www.nccivitas.org/2019/bill-put-fix-democracy/

https://www.ncpedia.org/government/local/body-politic

One Man, One Vote Equals Secession Movements

A cabal of know-it-all libertines in blue state governments has sparked secession movements throughout the country. Hard-working Christians in rural communities are sick and tired of being ruled by a band of wastrels who have nothing but contempt for them and traditional values. Worse, they don’t have the power to protect their property, or paychecks from these popper sniffers. California is in the forefront of this movement and they’re not alone.


How did this come about? How can a small geographic area heavily populated with illegal aliens, drug addicts, butt bandits and Marxist activist commit a coup in Sacramento, California? Well, it all started with a bumper slogan: One Man, One Vote.



This bumper sticker slogan came into reality back in the 1960’s from a series of Supreme Court decisions. These decisions were/are an attack on our republican form of government as promised in Article IV of our Constitution. I blogged about this four years ago. Here is an excerpt:



A series of Supreme Court rulings dating back to the 1960’s subverted the political process by retarding the rights of a State’s self governance. These judges – this priestly class – molested federalism by dictating the manner with which States’ shall choose their senators and representatives. This was by no means a federal consideration. This was purely local.



The rulings in question are Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Wesberry v. Sanders. The Supreme Court fundamentally changed the legislature of States by dictating their districts and how they were to be represented. Basically, rural citizens were to be dominated by urbanites. Degenerate values that breed on city streets would emanate from state capitols and spread throughout the countryside.


More importantly, this reconfiguration would benefit a political party that advocates centralized government. Having Democrats dominate state legislatures, they would draw districts that marginalize hard working, liberty loving citizens while packing federal congressional districts with teat squawkers, who are looking for an agent that would steal from his neighbors.



And because of activist judges, rural communities have been denied a republican form of government that safeguards their interest. Now we have secession movements within states. Here is an excerpt from a Fox News article that pretty much sums up this dilemma created by the wisdom of Supreme Court justices:



He looks at his home state of California and sees numerous clashes between the coastal cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the more conservative counties in the interior. This has led to the New California Movement, already organized in 35 counties, seeking to create two states where there was one. Other plans have California splitting into three states, or even six. It should be noted that these new states would still be bigger than many on the East Coast, and more populous than many in the West.

Kotkin feels this movement is driven by policies like the $15 minimum wage, “which makes sense in San Francisco, but doesn’t make sense in Fresno.” He adds those running California are “fundamentally authoritarian” with “not a lot of tolerance for any kind of economic or political diversity.” As he puts it, their attitude is “’We know the truth, we know what’s right, and it has to apply to everyone.”



We don’t have to create new states to resolve this problem. What we need is to repeal these unconstitutional rulings by an activist Supreme Court and restore a republican form of government as promised in Article IV.


Source:


https://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-ruralurban-dichotomy-is-nothing-new.html



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/19/are-some-states-headed-for-splitsville-movement-grows-to-allow-sections-states-to-break-away.html