Sunday, February 3, 2013

Nullification Illegal, So Says Kansas City Media

If you listen to Kansas City local media, the idea of nullification, the states passing laws in opposition of federal law, is an antiquated idea that is unconstitutional and a throw back to the racist ideas of the 1960's south.

In his opinion piece entitled Memo to contemptuous Missouri Sheriffs: Enforce the law or quite by the KC "red" Star's Yael Abhouhalkah writes about the growing number of sheriffs across the country who are saying their oath to uphold the Constition will not let them enforce laws that violate the second amendment:

If the sheriffs don’t think they can enforce the laws - if their heart or conscience won’t let them do it - they have an easy out.
They can resign. 
They can stop taking taxpayers’ money for a public-safety job, yet not doing the job correctly.

He went on to reiterate this belief on KCPT's Ruckus, where he was joined by KMBZ's Mike Shannin and Mary O'halloran in echoing these slanted and misleading views on nullification.

If you listen to these folks, there is absolutely nullification movements underway in the U.S. except those by right wing people who hate Obama because of his skin color.  People who that say just want to dismantle his legacy, like Obamacare and gun control.

In all there hemming and hawing not one mention was given to recent efforts by liberals to nullify federal law.  In just this past November, two states, Colorado and Washington, passed laws legalizing recreational marijuana use in Direct violation of federal law.  There are also numerous states that have already legalized marijuana or are considering doing so for medicinal purposes, again in direct violation of federal law.

When it comes to marriage there is the federal government's defense of marriage act that defines marriage as one man and one woman.  Yet, there are several state legislatures who have passed laws in direct opposition to federal law that legalizes gay marriage.  Maryland and Maine, blue states, both passed gay marriage legalization this past November through public referendum, again, in direct violation of federal law.

When it comes to immigration, cities and states all across this nation have declared themselves sanctuary city's, including Kansas City, MO, in which the refuse to comply with federal immigration laws.

These are just a few instances in which liberals are using nullification to thwart the will of the federal government and the majority of Americans.  Yet, they are not labelled racist, they are not attacked for using an idea that is pre-civil war and has been laid to rest as not legal.  When liberals use nullification, it simply is just not an issue and not controversial, it is just taken as the right and just thing.  Only when those on the right attempt to use nullification to protect their liberties is the very idea considered antiquated, racist, and wrong.

I would ask Yael if he would ask the same thing of Kansas City's Chief of Police or the Chiefs of police in other liberal cities like San Francisco who have refused to comply with federal law?  Should they resign?  Or in your mind have they some how earned the right you den to sheriffs, to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce?

Seems to me when comparing the two classes of law enforcement officials and the issues they choose to take a stand on, only one is on the right side of the law, the sheriffs who are standing up to protect the second amendment rights of the people, a duty they swore an oath to to do.  The chiefs of police are siding with criminals, business, and politicians who want to exploit immigrants for their votes and slave-like labor.


Anonymous said...

Good point on immigration. The pro population replacement crowd laments trying to force local police into becoming immigration agents. Yet they have no problem with turning said local police into ATF agents.

Anonymous said...

The "Red Star?" You cannot be serious. Commies under the bed. Right.

Hey, 1961 called. They said, "c'mon back anytime."

Anonymous said...

He is serious. Half the population of KC probably thinks of it as the Red Star. Why?

Here are some of the reasons:

1) Their stories seem to have a left-leaning bent. For example, stories on immigration, or gun control, always seem to be written from a position that opposition to immigration, or support of the 2nd Amendment, is either extreme, or at the least not part of the mainstream. Granted, if I were the editor of the paper, I'd probably feature articles in which supporters of open borders were depicted as out of the mainstream. So I assume half the city would call my paper right-wing or nationalist.

2) Comments. The Star goes to great lengths to make sure comments don't run counter to their views. And for some stories they don't even allow comments. For example, if there is a crime where the perpetrator is black and the victim is white, you can bet that the comments section will be closed. If I ran the paper, I'd leave the comments alone. Comments really compliment and in some cases make an online site. Papers like the Star ruin the experience by censoring or preventing comments which seems to be increasingly common among the Left in their zeal to prevent hate speech.

So to sum up, to many of us the KC Star is the Red Star because of its similarity to Pravda and other such propaganda organs of the past.

If you are happy with it fine. I hope you subscribe. They probably need all the help they can get given half the local population will never subscribe.