The Tarrant County Forty Nine Finally Redeemed

Redemption of the Tarrant County Forty Nine

By

James Scott Trimm

 

Almost two years ago, myself and a group of Tarrant County conservatives who became known as the "Tarrant County Forty Nine" were offered up on the alter of political correctness by the Tarrant County and Texas Republican Party leaders. 

The Tarrant County Forty Nine had dared to oppose the appointment of Shahid Shafi as vice chair of the Tarrant County Republican Party. 

Dr. Shafi  failed to directly respond to requests that he himself publicly declare that he will support Israel with Jerusalem as its undivided capital and oppose creation of a Palestinian State within the historic borders of Israel, in keeping with our 2018 Texas Republican Party Platform (Planks 207 and 208).  Moreover, Shafi had been enddorsed by CAIR, and refused to renounce that endorsement and repudiate CAIR, despite the fact that the 2018 Texas Republican Party Platform stated:

177. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): We hereby call on all law enforcement and governmental agencies in Texas to avoid and suspend all contact and outreach activities with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, with ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas.

For this, and other reasons (seen in The Geller Report here), the Tarrant County Forty Nine dared to oppose the Shafi appointment.  The leadership of both the local Tarrant County Republican Party and the Texas Republican Party conspired directly with the liberal media, to publicly smear the Tarrant County Forty Nine as supposed bigots.  Texas GOP Chair James Dickey even wrote an Op-Ed in the liberal Dallas Morning News attacking Shafi opposition as "bigotry"!

The whole fiasco had the Geller Report asking, "Is Texas Going Green"?

And by Understanding the Threat at Texas Media Desperate to Defend Jihadis

 And instigated this video response from Understanding the Threat:

 

But time has finally exonerated the Tarrant County Forty Nine. 

Less than a year ago, in December of 2019, Tarrant County GOP Chair Darl Easton finally gave heed to calls that he resign (As seen in the Geller Report here) over his division of the party over his handling of this issue. See my blog on this: Tarrant GOP Chair Darl Easton Heeds Calls to Resign

Last weekend the grass roots of the Texas GOP, about 6,000 delegates, voted to replace Texas Chair James Dickey with Lt. Col. Allen West.  West had once written a blog about "stealth jihad" in which he said "As those of us not under the spell of political correctness know, Islam does not coexist." (See my blog on this Allen West is Texas State Chair: Good Pro-Israel News

See Pamala Geller Interview of Allen West here

It has been almost two years, but time has ultimately redeemed the Forty Nine Conservatives who had the courage to stand up for our party platform, and against CAIR, while our own party leaders were throwing us under the bus and publicly calling us bigots in the liberal media.  It is indeed ironic that the Aramaic word חילא KHAILA, meaning "strength, courage" has a numerical value of 49. 

Allen West is Texas State Chair: Good Pro-Israel News

Allen West as Texas State Chair is Good Pro-Israel News 

By

James Scott Trimm

In 2018 newly elected County Chair of the Tarrant County Republican Party, Darl Easton nearly tore the Tarrant County Republican Party apart, with the controversial appointment of Shahid Shafi as Vice Chair.  

Dr. Shafi  failed to directly respond to requests that he himself publicly declare that he will support Israel with Jerusalem as its undivided capital and oppose creation of a Palestinian State within the historic borders of Israel, in keeping with our Texas Republican Party Platform:

207. Israel: We are grateful that the US Embassy in Israel has been moved to Jerusalem. We believe that Jerusalem should remain Israel’s undivided capital, accessible to people of all faiths. The United States should continue to support Israel militarily, financially, and technologically. We oppose any pressuring of Israel to make concessions they believe would jeopardize their security. We strongly oppose the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, on all levels, including and especially on college campuses, at the United Nations, and by anti-West non-governmental organizations. We believe there should not be a Palestinian state within the historical borders of Israel. Our policy is inspired by God’s biblical promise to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel, and we further invite other nations and organizations to enjoy the benefits of that promise.
208. Israel’s Sovereignty: We further insist upon Israel’s right to exist, its right to secure borders, and its right to the land secured by practicing self-defense from aggressive enemies. We strongly encourage other nations of the world to respect Israel’s sovereignty, right of self-determination, and right of self-defense.


The rather defensive reaction from our County Chair was that it was unfair to ask Dr. Shafi if he will make such a declaration (each element of which is in our party platform) simply because he is a Muslim:

 



Actually one can be a Muslim and still support Israel.  In fact there is a very, very, small group of pro-Israel “Zionist” Muslims.  But they are in extremely small numbers and live in fear of their lives, threatened by the vast majority.  The Wikipedia article on Muslim Supporters of Israel, however, says:

In the Muslim world, support of Israel is a minority orientation, and supporters of Israel have faced opposition and violence

One wonders why such oppression and violence would come from a religion of peace.

However Dr. Shafi had been endorsed by CAIR which is well known for its anti-Israel agenda.

 





Our Texas Party platform says of CAIR:

177. Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): We hereby call on all law enforcement and governmental agencies in Texas to avoid and suspend all contact and outreach activities with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), named unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, with ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas.

And the ADL says of CAIR:

CAIR’s anti-Israel agenda dates back to its founding by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas affiliated anti-Semitic propaganda organization.

At the September 2018 meeting of the Executive Committee, Dr. Shafi addressed the body, but completely ignored calls for him to make a public statement supporting our pro-Israel platform.


By November of 2018  There was a concerted effort by the Tarrant County Republican Party leadership in cooperation with the liberal media, to establish a narrative that the opposition to Shahid Shafi is driven by bigotry.

 In fact this blogger received a message from a Party official (who shall remain nameless) saying:

"It is a simple narrative that I am trying to establish. The TCGOP does not approve of bigotry within the party. I understand your concerns and its importance, I get it. ... Perception is everything. ... I would ask a favor, please stop working against what my goal is here..." 

The leadership within the Tarrant County Republican Party collaborated with the liberal media to intentionally establish this bigotry narrative.  
 
Darl Easton had created a public relations nightmare.  The party was divided and there was little hope that is could unite under Darl's leadership with this controversial appointment in place.  Yet, since Darl and his cohorts, had established a narrative for the liberal media that this was only about bigotry, the liberal media was attacking the party as "bigots".

The story of the whole debacle, which ultimately led to Easton's resignation, can be found in my blog Tarrant GOP Chair Darl Easton Heeds Calls to Resign

While Darl was tearing the Tarrant County Republican party apart, labeling any opposition to Shafi in the press a bigot. Texas State Chair James Dickey wasted no time at all in joining in, also cooperating with the liberal press to label Shafi opposition as bigotry, even writing an op-ed saying:

In Tarrant County, a few individuals have sought to remove Dr. Shahid Shafi from his position as Vice Chair of the county Party because of his religion – because he is a Muslim. That is not our Party.... The Republican Party has a long history of fighting for our God-given rights, for freedom and against bigotry in all forms.
(Dallas Morning News Dec. 7, 2018)

James Dicky seemed determined to divide the state party as deeply as the Tarrant County Party had been divided, and joined this collaboration with the liberal press to label fellow Republicans bigots in the media!

At yesterday's Texas Republican Party Convention, the grassroots Republicans voted to replace State Chair James Dickey with Lieutenant Colonel Allen West.

Allen West is a man known for his staunch support of Israel, having once said:

"As goes Israel - so goes the United States of America and so goes Western civilization. And so many of our adversaries and enemies know that. That's what we're facing all across the Middle East and, truthfully, all across the world."
Allen West: If Israel goes, Western civilization goes

West is not a man to bow to CAIR like Dickey, to the contrary, CAIR has listed West as an alleged "Islamaphob"  Unlike the politically correct Dickey, West once wrote a blog on the The stealth jihad of Islamic immigration in which West wrote: "As those of us not under the spell of political correctness know, Islam does not coexist." 

 Lieutenant Colonel Allen West is not under the spell of political correctness which has afflicted our previous leadership.  Colonel West is the man to reunite our party and to recommit our party to our party platform!

SCOTUS Ruling Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

SCOTUS Ruling Would Jail People for Not Voting as Directed by the State!

By

James Scott Trimm

We are living in post-constitutional America.  Fox News has just reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws requiring those chosen for the Electoral College to back the popular winner in their state's presidential race, a rebuke of a group of so-called "faithless" presidential electors in Washington and Colorado who sued after they were sanctioned for voting contrary to pledges they took before becoming electors.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court said that those sanctions -- in Washington a fine and in Colorado being removed and replaced as an elector -- are constitutional.
(Supreme Court rules states can bind faithless electors)

In fact these laws are flatly unconstitutional.  Article II, Section 1; Clause 3 of the United States Constitution reads:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

(Article II, Section 1 ; Clause 3)

This was amended by the 12^th amendment which reads in part “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President…”

The Constitution is clear that the electors are empowered to “vote.”  What does “vote” mean? 

Well according to Webster’s 1806 (first edition) Dictionary published just nineteen years after the Constitutional Convention “vote” was understood to mean “to give or choose by votes, n. a voice”  

Dictionary.com defines “vote” to mean “to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot.”

The current Webster’s Dictionary Definition of “vote” is “a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially :  one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “vote” as follows: “Suffrage; the expression of his will, preference, or choice, formally manifested by a member of a legislative or deliberative body, or of a constituency or a body of qualified electors, in regard to the decision to be made by the body as a whole upon any proposed measure or proceeding, or the selection of an officer or representative. And the aggregate of the expressions of will or choice, thus manifested by individuals, is called tlie "vote of the body."

Most importantly we can look to Federalist Paper 68 to see clearly what the original intent of the framers was in regards to the power to vote granted to the members of the electoral college:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

(Alexander Hamilton; Federalist Paper 68)

Here it is clear that the original intent of the framers was that the electors be confided with trust.  It is also clear that the original intent that the electors engage in analysis, deliberation, investigation and discernment in making a vote which is specifically “their choice.”  

This bill therefore violates the stated principles of the 2016 Texas Republican Party Platform:

"... we support the strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas."
(Texas 2016 Republican Party Platform)

This bill would violate the constitution by making the electors mere messengers and transferring the power to investigate, deliberate, exercise discernment and choose to a popular election.  This being in direct conflict with the original intent of the Framers as set for above in Federalist Paper 68 which specifically says:

 A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

The Framers empowered the electors with this power to vote specifically because they did not want the "general mass" voting for the president!

SCOTUS now says a state can literally make it a felony for an elector to follow the US Constitution and “vote” in the sense which is clearly that of the original intent of the framers!  Furthermore under this ruling people can be thrown in jail for voting other than the way the State requires them to vote!  (Now that is scary).

Immediately after the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin declared that the Framers had delivered to us “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  This SCOTUS ruling plays into Progressive efforts to destroy our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a Direct Democracy.