04 February 2017

Moral Reformer Historians All In For Nullification


It is stunning to observe the extent to which modern historians moral reformers will go to advance their political agenda under the guise of "historical analysis" these days. Their Gumby-like stretches and contortions are jaw-dropping - an intellectual version of being double-jointed. Prior to November 9th, 2016, they all marched in lockstep denouncing any state or local community that dared oppose federal intervention, meddling or what might be looked upon as "heavy-handed" regarding laws, regulations and executive orders.

Wow, what a difference a day can make. Miraculously, the day after Donald J. Trump (who many are, ironically, comparing to Andrew Jackson) won the presidential election, they became staunch defenders of John Calhoun's principles of nullification. Perhaps the faux historians have traded their copies of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States for a copy of Thomas Woods's Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. (Wikipedia)
As a matter of fact, many of the comments and statements coming from these "historians" defending open defiance of Trump's executive orders on immigration echo exactly what Dr. Woods has written:
In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states.  The peoples of the states are the sovereigns.  It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government.  In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it. 
Of course, the current brand of nullification is mostly local, i.e. cities and counties in lieu of states; as far as President Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees goes. Whereas for the last eight years, the Tea Party, libertarians, conservative Republicans and anyone else opposing federal power was labeled "radical, extremist, neo-Confederate", blah, blah, blah, we are now being told that any and all opposition to federal power is noble and courageous. And these folks are all in lockstep (including the violent protest participants on college campuses and the "mainstream" media). Just peruse the academic related history websites and blogs. No dissent, no difference of opinion, no nuances, no objectivity - pure partisanship. It's laughable. 

If the State of California follows through with it's threat to institute sanctuary status state-wide, I wonder if these pretend historians will suddenly become converts to advocating for states' rights?

These historians are, obviously, absolute hypocrites and little more than mouth organs for the left. There is no consistency in their writing or analysis - other than to be consistent leftists. Laugh at them. They are not historians in the true sense. They are unprincipled political hacks and adherents to Groupthink; unable or afraid to think, say or write anything outside of current academic high church orthodoxy.

No comments: