It’s been a while since I’ve put “pen to paper” so to speak but a recent event (and the subsequent way in which the mainstream media covered it, as well as the way the Republican Party responded to said coverage), caught my attention. As it turned out, I wasn’t the only one who took note of the “Left’s” dog whistle code word.

In late 2023 the State of Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump could be banned from the state ballot for the 2024 election. The mainstream media (never missing an opportunity to smear anyone who disagrees with such decisions) decided to label those who disagreed with the court’s decision as “Confederates.”

MSN {.com} reported:

“New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay claimed Republicans criticizing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to ban Trump from the ballot were in “the spirit” of confederates from the Civil War.

On Tuesday, the all-Democrat Colorado Supreme Court decided in a 4-3 decision to ban former President Trump’s name from being on the state ballot for 2024. Several Republicans, including Trump’s rivals for the presidential primary, came out against this decision, referring to it as an attack on democracy.

In response, Gay insisted on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that these Republicans were standing on the side of confederates in merely defending Trump.”

Unfortunately, even the most conservative of the current crop of G.O.P. contenders for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential election just don’t get it. Following the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to ban Donald Trump from the state ballot, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy was quoted in another MSN {.com} article, which reported:

“Today’s decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for their candidate of choice,” he added.

Ramaswamy then noted that the 14th Amendment was passed “to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office.”

“These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States: the Civil War. That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th President on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States,” he said.”

While Ramaswamy is right to note that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was election interference, as well as an attempt to silence political opponents, his views on the 14th Amendment miss the mark.

The 14th Amendment was, in itself, an act to silence political opposition. It was an act of political opposition because in order for Confederates to have been traitors, they would have been fighting to take over the existing government of the United States. This was not the case, the Confederacy was formed when the states who felt they were not being fairly treated or represented in the government of the United States, seceded, choosing to form a nation of their own. If this made them traitors, then one could say that the Founding Fathers of the United States were traitors and that the act of forming the United States was an act of treason against the British Empire.

The preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America states that:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That is the reason the United States of America was founded and it was the reason that the Confederate States of America was formed. It was an individual decision of each colony to leave the British Empire and join an American Confederation. It was the decision of each Southern state to leave the United States of America and join the Confederate States of America. In the case of the United States, each colony elected their own representatives and leaders, not to control what happened in London, England but to control their own destiny in their best interest. In the case of the Confederate states of America, each state elected their own representatives and leaders, not to control Washington, D.C. but to control their own destiny in their best interest.

Perhaps the Republicans would be better served defending the concept of a Confederacy instead of condemning it. 

The Republican Party platform states:

“Republicans believe in liberty, economic prosperity, preserving American values and traditions, and restoring the American dream for every citizen of this great nation. As a party, we support policies that seek to achieve those goals. 

Our platform is centered on stimulating economic growth for all Americans, protecting constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and maintaining our national security. We are working to preserve America’s greatness for our children and grandchildren.”

Which represents that platform better; a corrupt political establishment in Washington, D.C. or the Confederacy who felt disenfranchised and decided to follow in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers who decided to form their own government when the existing power structure tried to silence a political opposition who was no longer satisfied with being ruled by a political puppet?