My Tea Party Chronicle

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

FOLLOW THE MONEY TO THE ARTICLE V CONVENTION

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.....seems like the apt phrase for this.
The Convention of States / Aritcle V Consitutional Convention / Con Con is appealing to people through deception. That is a fact.  And that is the tragedy of it.

Digging deeper into the Convention of States, I find that there is a Texas billionaire named Leo Linbeck III, who is the champion of the misnamed Fair Tax. Actually, his father who passed away recently, began that scheme, but his son, Linbeck III, is still in the Fair Tax game, only this time through the COS / Article V proposition.

In the midst of upper economic echelons and now in the midst of middle class, disgruntled taxpayers, Mr. Linbeck has found he can manipulate politicians, and policies with his fortune. Sadly, I find some of my conservative tea party friends being sucked into the whirling toilet bowl he is stirring up.  I've been told by some of them that the Fair Tax is why they want the Convention of States / Constitutional Convention.  I wondered why the Con Con was going to be bringing in the Fair Tax, so I went looking for answers.  Mr. Leo Linbeck III is that answer.

Mr. Linbeck describes himself as a "conservative communitarian." (see below)  Don't you love double speak! In the Orwellian method of twisting words and combining opposite philosophies in the same phrase, Mr. Linbeck describes himself as two opposite points of view. (I describe myself as a “conservative communitarian.”) He has hired and convinced some lawyers to do the propaganda tour to convince the grassroots that a Constitutional Convention is the answer to all that ails our nation.

Mr. Linbeck is not the lone wealthy person behind COS, but is a major player. In 2012, Mark Meckler left the Tea Party Patriots to join Linbeck in a PAC called Campaign for Primary Accountability, the purpose of which was to unseat incumbent politicians. There was money from Campaign for Primary Accountability (CPA) spent with Karl Rove who was active in our state of NC, as my friends well know.  (Mike Huckabee was involved with one of the candidates during the primary.  Connection to Huckabee below.) Mr.  Meckler also set up another non-profit called "Citizens for Self Governance."  "Self Governance" is a favorite phrase of Leo Linbeck III.  Now Mr. Meckler, formerly with Tea Party Patriots, is on the sales tour for Convention of States.

According to Mr. Linbeck regarding descriptions of his actions and orgs. "Well, we've been described as conservative, liberal, anarchists, nihilists, right-wingers, and – my personal favorite – both pro-Obama and anti-Obama."

Having it both ways:

So, in North Carolina, perhaps that is why we hear from Thom Tillis (NC Senate Candidate) that Obamacare just needs tweaking...is mostly just fine? And Mr. Tillis is on board with North Carolina P3 toll roads, a "Third Way" financing of our roads.  Is this why we are hearing mixed messages from our Lt. Gov. who says he is against Common Core on the one hand, but then says 95% of it is just great? Perhaps this explains why our Lt. Gov. said something similar to me regarding "sustainability," i.e. "most of it is just great."  This evening, our Lt. Governor is at a promotional  presentation with Michael Farris, the National Director of Convention of Sates.  ("Farris and both Mark and Patty Meckler, founders of the increasingly influential Convention Of States, a division of Citizens for Self Governance. ")

Mike Huckabee tried to have it both ways on Common Core as well...and is all in for the Fair Tax. Now Huckabee is out there promoting the movie, "UnFair," which is nothing more than a propaganda film for the Fair Tax ....which IS the Linbeck scheme.  From what I've seen of Mike Huckabee, he would call himself a "progressive conservative," so being attached to Linbeck's Fair Tax scheme and promoting Common Core would fit like a glove.

Do you wonder who is driving this mind-bending duplicity campaign to the grassroots?  It's positively schizophrenic. 

Again, from 2012, a press release: (Mark Meckler) The Tea Party leader is joining a CPA leadership team that includes the libertarian O’Keefe, the “conservative communitarian” Leo Linbeck..."   

Between the misnamed, so-called "Fair Tax," the Convention of States / Article V / Constitutional Convention, and now finding a Communitarian with large sums of money behind them,  I am seriously concerned that our State legislators are once again being bought and led down a garden path....the wrong way and over a cliff with no return tickets. The Constitutional Convention, these people call a "Convention of States to propose amendments" has no return (to the Constitution) tickets.

Today, I want to hammer home the definition of "communitarianism," so my friends will understand the game afoot. Communitarianism is defined below. I would ask people read and realize who is shoving this Article V Convention at the grassroots tea partiers. And then ask, how does this fit with your beliefs and hopes for our Constitution.

Definition of Communitarianism:

Like Collectivism, which stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, Communitarianism focuses on community and society, and seeks to give priority to group goals over individual goals. However, for the most part, communitarians emphasize the use of non-governmental organizations in furthering their goals, and so differ from authoritarian or Communist sympathizers. Its exact premises and policy consequences are difficult to pin down, and most criticism of Communitarianism has come from individualist thinkers concerned that it just provides cover for collectivists.

Although a 20th Century philosophy, the term "communitarian" was coined in the 1840s by the British utopian Socialist Goodwyn Barmby (1820 - 1881) to refer to advocates of a communalist society (which refers to communal living and/or communal property, essentially a forerunner to modern Communism).

Ideological Communitarianism can be seen as a radical centrist ideology (a third way philosophy which includes the belief that, in affirming the core principles involved on both sides of a political argument, the disagreement can be resolved or rendered moot). It is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and conservatism on social issues. Communitarians seek to bolster social capital (the value to democracy of social networks and groups) and the institutions of civil society. It also affirms positive rights such as state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, extensive public works programs, and often even the right to a job, and laws limiting pollution, gun ownership, etc.

Communitarianism from Philosophy Basics

Sources:
Forbes
New York Times - Huckabee + Fair Tax
Fair Tax - Tell the Truth on Them
="http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20120406-point-person-our-qa-with-leo-linbeck-iii-of-the-campaign-for-primary-accountability.ece">I describe myself....

Monday, July 14, 2014

USING CHILDREN FOR WARFARE ON OUR BORDER AND ELSEWHERE

Civilization has devolved.  I'm trying to think of any other time in history, other than recent history, where grown men used children as tools and shields in war.   I am aware of sexual exploitation of children in failed civilizations of the past.  And sacrificing children in ancient pagan rituals.  But somehow this seems a bit different ....wholesale.  The scale is different.  Not to mention the Orwellian joke of the entire thing based on "compassion."  

"In a clearly-defined contrast in morality, Israel released a video showing a planned airstrike that was called off when the pilot realized that children may have been within range of his target. Hamas, however, continues to openly boast about how they have encouraged Gazan civilians to sacrifice themselves as human shields."


The little children in great danger, holding hands, staring blankly ahead, are pawns in a larger game. That game is run by adults. How cold do you have to be to use children in this way?


It is evident that the Obama administration orchestrated this crisis in the mode of the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis. It is a matter of public record that as early as January of this year, the administration was soliciting for private contractors to aid in the transport of these children – so they knew these kids were coming.

Redstate - White House Planned in Advance for Illegal Border Surge

Finally, an event the president can’t claim he was surprised about or heard about in the news! Yes, for the first time ever, his administration actually planned well in advance, for the massive swell of illegals coming across the border. Specifically they planned for 65,000 illegals, mostly children under the age of 17, to come across the Texas border.


Well, it is what it is.  How cunning is it to use the compassionate against the sovereignty of their own nation?  The Palestinians have nothing on Obama.  He is cut of the same cloth; cold and calculating against the civilized, against anyone who would block his ultimate goals of power and control.  Men who would use children for their own power are mentally sick, psychotic.  They have devolved into barbarism that those on the left proclaim they have "evolved" past.  God saved Abraham's son from sacrifice.  How godlike are these men who demand children die and suffer, are used as pawns for political power?  Even God backed off on that one. "We," (Christians) Americans don't do things this way.
 
God bless America as we used to know it. 

(caveat: The part about Abraham is my understanding of the compassionate God who doesn't demand sacrificial innocents for His own sake. )







Tuesday, June 17, 2014

THE GLOOMY MUSE

I was thinking this morning that this current generation is going through what we went through regards to war. (Fewer dead, thousands maimed, vividly painful just the same.) Liberating Southeast Asia from communism, liberating the Middle East from terrorism. Yet communism (under whatever ideological tag ~ fascism, socialism, communitarianism, etc.) and terrorism are both thriving, merrily rampant, here and abroad. The globalists are laughing all the way to the bank.

We freed Europe from Nazism-Socialism (WWII).....what do you see there? Socialism.

But, wait....it is so much worse than that.  Now our military is told their mission is to fight Global Warming? Really? America was the last place on earth...falling fast, taken over by inches .....over decades of dumbing down, culture rot, and centralized power.

If you are sitting there thinking this (globalism - "we are the world" rubbish) is for your own good, or this government has the answers for peace and prosperity, you haven't been watching. I guess you will just tell your children you sat this out, played golf, went to the mall, didn't get involved. It was too much trouble to stand up or do the hard work of looking under the slick, shiny, marketing schemes to see what is really being stolen from (us) them.
And now we have a foreign invasion on the southern border with our own government orchestrating it. Today U.S. Embassies worldwide are flying the gay Rainbow flag to celebrate homosexuality.  While Common Core indoctrinates our school children with that same flag.   Hip hip ....isn't that great?

Yep...sovereignty is dead. Long live the globalists!


Thursday, April 10, 2014

THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD....EXCEPT WHEN YOU NEED A GUN

Today is the first and only day in my life (so far) that I decided I'd like to be a 35 year old man with the kajones to go after our government. I'm talking physical muscle.  Wishing I had it...lots of it, right now.  I've always been perfectly happy being female.  What's that old song, "I Enjoy Being A Girl?"  That's me. (I also liked the song, "It's So Nice To Have A Man Around The House.") But today, as I watched the news reports coming from Nevada about the Bundy family's cattle ranch, my blood pressure kept rising and I felt my Irish getting up, I swallowed hard a bunch of times....and let me tell you, this makes my blood boil.  I've seen another recent report about other ranchers being bullied, harrassed, and forced out by the Bureau of Land Management, so this isn't the first time I've been angry about this sort of thing.   I am wondering if this will be the last straw for enough people to smack down this cabal of thugs we call our government. 

Congress?  What Congress.  We've watched for years while they funded the unconstitutional agencies and refused to rein them in.  The result of which is a perfect example of "give 'em an inch and they take a mile." We've watched for the last 5 or 6 years while Congress talks big about doing something and does nothing to stop this insanity.  At this point, they are all criminally negligent.   

Sometimes you get to the point where the only thing left is to physically overpower thugs, either with numbers of people or with higher fire power.  I'm watching the situation in Nevada and wishing I could be one of the numbers and wishing I could fight back for the Bundy family, the cattle ranchers whose cattle are being stolen by the Bureau of Land Management.  Driving the knife into my heart, and I'm sure their hearts, is that this is calving season and the BLM is orphaning newborn and dogie calves who will starve without their mothers.  What sort of people are these?  These are not Americans.  They are no better than Nazi brownshirts.  This can't happen in America.  ???  Well, guess what!  It is.  The BLM hired thugs are nothing more than cattle thieves.  We used to know what to do to cattle thieves.  Now it's the government as cattle thieves. 

This is on top of what government has done to the farmers in California.  And we wonder why our food prices are escalating.  Beef is at an all time high.  Stealing thousands of cows and putting cattle ranchers out of business is sure going to help that, right?  

This is not just about the Bundy's, although they are the critical situation at the moment.  This is about all of us.  Every American.  What the BLM is doing is Agenda 21, pushing people off their own land, shutting down property rights, controlling the food supply and all resources.  It's all of us...no one is coming out of this unscathed.

Watch this


Telling you....this ought to do it....it is time to fight back with something stronger than a pen.  But my pen is all this lady has to offer right now. 

If you can at least pick up your phone:

Bureau Of Land Management Phone Number:  (202) 208-3801

Brian Sandoval Email Contact Form- http://gov.nv.gov/Contact/Governor/
Brian Sandoval – Carson City Phone # - (775) 684-5670
Brian Sandoval Las Vegas Phone # -(702) 486-2500
Senator Dean Heller Contact Form - http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form
Phone #’s For Heller – Reno: 775-686-5770/ Las Vegas: 702-388-6605/ Washington: 202-224-6244
Sheriff Douglas Gillespi - (702) 828-3231 or (702) – 828 – 3111
Email: Sheriff@lvmpd.com
Steny Hoyer: Phone – (202)- 225-4131
Steny Hoyer Email Contact Form - https://hoyer.house.gov/email-steny
Here are the pertinent email addresses and phone numbers:
  • Bureau Of Land Management Phone Number: (202) 208-3801
  • Brian Sandoval Email Contact Form- http://gov.nv.gov/Contact/Governor/
  • Brian Sandoval – Carson City Phone # - (775) 684-5670
  • Brian Sandoval Las Vegas Phone # -(702) 486-2500
  • Senator Dean Heller Contact Form -
  • Phone #’s For Heller – Reno: 775-686-5770/ Las Vegas: 702-388-6605/ Washington: 202-224-6244
  • Sheriff Douglas Gillespi - (702) 828-3231 or (702) – 828 – 3111
  • Email: Sheriff@lvmpd.com

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/militias-route-bunkerville-nv-will-start-2nd-american-revolution/#hb1oIZwATawZyPPa.99


  • Bureau Of Land Management Phone Number: (202) 208-3801
  • Brian Sandoval Email Contact Form- http://gov.nv.gov/Contact/Governor/
  • Brian Sandoval – Carson City Phone # - (775) 684-5670
  • Brian Sandoval Las Vegas Phone # -(702) 486-2500
  • Senator Dean Heller Contact Form -
  • Phone #’s For Heller – Reno: 775-686-5770/ Las Vegas: 702-388-6605/ Washington: 202-224-6244
  • Sheriff Douglas Gillespi - (702) 828-3231 or (702) – 828 – 3111
  • Email: Sheriff@lvmpd.com

  • Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/militias-route-bunkerville-nv-will-start-2nd-american-revolution/#hb1oIZwATawZyPPa.99



    Tuesday, February 18, 2014

    GRASPING AT POISON STRAWS - PART TWO - CONVENTION OF STATES

    I've been asked, "Why do (I) think that certain people who seem to be respected in conservative circles (such as Michael Farris) would be involved in the Convention of States if it is as bad as I say it is.  I've answered that I don't know the exact motives of each of them, but it seems there are many different motives, none of which have much of anything to do with preserving the U.S. Constitution as it was written.  Then I get the "but we have to modernize" argument, again from people who claim to love America and yet don't understand that COS aims to change the very America they claim to love.  And further they contend, "But it isn't working now, so we must act."

    To answer these questions, I think it is best to look at the organizations involved, the people at the top of them, and the amendments themselves.  As you read this, know I am not in the character assassination business.  I just think people need to ask these questions before they follow a path that leads in the wrong direction. 

    Convention of States has a board of directors.   Michael Farris is the head of the Convention of States project.  Evidently, he is the hero of home-school parents for defending the rights of home-schooling for several years.  But there seems to be another side to this man and the amendment he proposes regarding parental rights that happens to grant more power to the federal government, power the federal government does not have in the original Constitution.  He denies this.  Michael Farris is also President of "Parental Rights.org." in which Grover Norquist is the Director.  Grover Norquist is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  Mr. Norquist is married to a Muslim and is a Muslim convert.  I find this partnership with Norquist to be curious and troublesome. This isn't just an acquaintanceship.  It's a business partnership.  Is it wise to put your faith in a man who is that closely associated with someone who is promoting Islam's Sharia law?  CPAC, Norquist, Sharia Law
    Front Page Magazine on Norquist's Islam Connections
    "AT CPAC this year, Grover Norquist told a George Soros publication that Islam “is completely consistent with the U.S. Constitution and a free and open society,” a statement that reveals either a profound lack of understanding of Islamic law, or a conscious effort at deception."

    Why would Michael Farris create a partnership with a man such as Grover Norquist, if Farris is as he claims, a devotee of the U.S. Constitution?  Does anyone else find this troubling?

    On this page under "Parental Rights Basics,"  Mr. Farris's organization links the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  For those of us who have been in the trenches, battling the insidious infiltration of the UN's Agenda 21 Doctrine in our United States, this is very curious.  Publius Huldah has also pointed out the model for Mr. Farris is this UN Doctrine. 
    ParentalRights.org Basics
    I think Constitutional Conservatives in the grassroots might find that fact just a little disconcerting.  Has Mr. Farris revealed to the Tea Parties and grassroots folks, or the legislators, that what he is doing is placing a UN doctrine on parental rights into our Constitution?

    So how about the amendment that Mr. Farris wants to place on the table for the Convention of States Convention?  There is serious debate on this from both sides.  Two people in particular, one of whom used to be a supporter of Farris' efforts regarding home-schooling, have been ridiculed and tossed aside by Mr. Farris in recent years, Phyllis Schafly and Publius Huldah.  There are others objecting to his proposal as well.  Mr. Farris' amendment, by virtue of enumerating an additional right not included in the bundle of Natural Rights, by the federal government, gives the federal government dominion over that right.  The rights of parents, heretofore, have been implicit and inherent in the bundle of Natural Rights given to us by "Nature's God" as described in the Declaration of Independence.  The Founders explained that all of these Natural Rights were not to be enumerated, but understood, save the few in the Bill of Rights.  As we have seen, at least three of the enumerated rights are under attack constantly lately; freedom of speech, 2nd amendment gun rights, and property rights.  If adding another enumerated right for parents is supposed to avert attacks on parental rights, it seems this amendment idea would do the opposite, simply draw more fire and not succeed at the supposed intention.

    Mr. Farris would like to place something into the Constitution that would add a Constitutional enforceable amendment, giving the federal government power over it.  This same argument is being used by those who wish to redefine what marriage is, another tenet of Natural Law.  I will admit it is possible, giving him the benefit of the doubt,  that Mr. Farris is trying to reinforce what historically has been known as a Natural Right, "Parental Rights," just as an amendment for traditional marriage on the federal level might do. (DOMA = federal Defense of Marriage Act, is not an amendment.)  What happened to DOMA?  We have now a government refusing to enforce DOMA without changing the law.  Repeating myself, we have 1st and 2nd amendments that are also being ignored by the federal government.  (Among a myriad of other insults and attacks against amendments already in the Constitution.)   If those conservative friends of mine would see how far the DOMA has gotten us, they might understand that when the federal government gets the power to decide the definitions of rights extraneous to the Constitution, today's policy brokers don't land on the side of traditional Natural Law.  There is also the federal judiciary which would be adjudicating the purpose and intent of the amendment, and we have seen clearly today that the federal judiciary is not on the side of conservative causes or necessarily individual rights and liberties. Mr. Farris denies this is a problem.

    Mr. Farris explains that amending the Constitution is not an act of the Federal government, but is an action by states.  He says that, but that is not the point.  The point of the Convention of States is that the amendments require interpretation and enforcement by the federal government and the federal judiciary.  He argues otherwise.  He asserts on the one hand that the states can ignore the federal government by going through the Convention of States process, but nonetheless, the amendment he proposes is an addition to the federal Constitution.  If the states are so independent as to ignore the federal government, why is he concerned with adding an amendment to the Constitution? 

    One more thing I noticed in one of Mr. Farris' arguments against Publius Huldah that makes me question the Convention of States.  The Convention of States proponents, i.e. Mr. Farris, continually assert that this has nothing to do with Congress and that the states can do this on their own...or at the least, Congress MUST ratify what the states have decided.  He says that Article V gives all the power of doing this to the states.  Yet, in this article, according to Mr. Farris:
    "Constitutional amendments are created by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress which is followed by ratification by three-fourths of the several states."

    So I wish to ask, which is it?  He admits here that you MUST go through Congress in order to create amendments to the Constitution.  He says the states ratify these AFTER Congress has voted to create the amendments.  That is backwards and upside down from what his organization, the COS sales people are telling grassroots conservatives.  In effect, in his quote above he is admitting that the only power the states have in this situation is ask for Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention to create amendments.   

    These are just some reasons to disallow the Convention of States or any other amendment proposing group from getting their hands on adding power to the Constitution that is not there originally from the brilliance of the Founders.  Do you think the Founders were negligent by excluding a Parental Rights Amendment?  They also didn't place a Marriage Amendment into the Constitution.  The Founders did not put a right to healthcare or food into the Constitution either.  Some things are wisely left to the citizens to morally act as best as they can on their own within the parameters of actual criminal behaviors.  Parental rights are one of those things.  Whether or not you believe that Mr. Farris has been a champion of parents' rights for home-schooling or supporter of the Constitution, I don't believe his COS effort is either a good idea or is what he is telling people it is.  I think he is misleading people and that this is a dangerous route he wishes to take you down.  Maybe he has all the good intentions in the world, I don't know.  But by doing this COS project, he is opening the door to every other group of people who wish to add "rights" to the U.S. Constitution.  His followers in this try to tell you otherwise, that they can control what happens in Convention of States...which again, he admits is a Constitutional Convention.  Mr. Farris and Mark Levin deliver all sorts of promises that this process can be controlled by them.  But the process itself doesn't give them that authority.  They are being deceitful, I'm sorry to say.  For good intentions?  I hope we know that is a method of sales pitch that we reject from the socialist and globalist left.  Why would we take that from these guys?  

    May be more coming....if there will be a Part Three.  This one page of research ought to make you stop in your tracks and rethink any support for Mr. Farris' Convention of States.  Need I go on? 


     Some sources here:
    Exposing the Convention of States"

    ver G. Norquist past relationships:

    Jack Abramoff - political ally
    Citizens for America - field director
    National Taxpayers Union - executive director
    - See more at: http://arkansas.securetherepublic.com/news/say-no-to-an-article-v-amendment-convention/#sthash.Fp0zKqIP.dpuf
    el P. Farris is Head of Convention of the States Project or better known as a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) and President of Parentalrights.org in which Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) member Grover G. Norquist is the Director.  - See more at: http://arkansas.securetherepublic.com/news/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/#sthash.msHlaROg.dpuf


    Thursday, February 6, 2014

    GRASPING AT POISON STRAWS - PART ONE - CONVENTION OF STATES

    There is a move afoot, brought to the mass of grassroots tea party participants by Mark Levin, whose book, "The Liberty Amendments," is all the latest rage.  Glenn Beck, who was NOT on board, has been convinced to take on the job of pushing the idea of a Constitutional Convention, but renamed "Convention of States." I can't imagine why.  Don't be fooled by the branding experts, a Constitutional Convention and Convention of States (COS) are one and the same thing, most likely become one and the same thing.  Yet, Levin and the other pushers on this idea are insisting you don't "get it" if you think other than what he is selling.  Oh, no...."It isn't the same thing!" they adamantly proclaim.  "It's Article V!!"  "We can do this!"  "The framers gave it to us!"

    The sales pitch is incredible.  Pie in the sky and all the candy you could ever consume.  The sellers of this are preying on tea party conservatives who are literally desperate to do something BIG to rein in the federal government.  I get the desperation part....really, I do. They tell you nothing else is working, so you might as well go for the brass ring and grab the Constitution and amend it.  They tell you the process has NO chance of being hijacked by the leftists / socialists.  (Do they know who was behind the 25th Amendment?  Hint: Birch Bayh with Rockefeller money.)  They tell you the 10th Amendment using nullification is too cumbersome and doesn't solve the problems we face.  They tell you the whole thing is driven by state legislators, those closest to the voters.  They tell you this is perfectly legitimate through Article V of the Constitution and that the framers handed this golden opportunity for moments just like the one we face today.  They tell you this, knowing that right now our federal government doesn't follow the Constitution as it was written anyway, but they insist that the federal government WILL listen to new amendments that curtail the wrack and ruin being done now. 

    O.K.  Here is why I am saying the COS and Constitutional Convention are the same thing.  Yes, Article V is the prescription for amending the Constitution....which IS CHANGING the Constitution by amendment(s).  (Note the plural.) The argument the COS people are pushing is that at no time has there ever been a Constitutional Convention but the first one that created the Constitution.  Otherwise, the COS people will tell you, there can be no such thing as a Constitutional Convention. So why didn't they just ask for one or two amendments ONLY as part of this process?  Why didn't they call this effort a Call to Amend?  They aren't specific.  What they are doing is asking for a Convention of States (state legislators) to propose amendments, but no one knows what those amendments would be.  This could be limitless.  Several are floating around from left and right and all could be on the docket.  Sounds like an open convention to change the Constitution to me.  But wait... the Call to Amend under another name already exists....keep reading.

    Unknown to many of the tea party people getting pulled into this is another effort to change the Constitution called "Move To Amend."  COS was not first out of the starting gate to do this.  "Move To Amend" has been at this a while.  The backers of that one are all the usual suspects from the global communist / socialist left.  It looks, from what I can find out, COS and Move To Amend are joining forces, each to accomplish the same goal, changing / amending the Constitution to suit their own aims.  (I see that Mark Meckler has been coordinating the effort with the Aspen Institute. Look them up please.) I hear the promotions for "bipartisanship" in both the COS and Move To Amend.  This is going to end in a free for all, with state legislators being bought off right and left.  (pun intended.)  There is no restriction on how many amendments or the subject of these amendments.  The amendments can come from anywhere and about anything.  I can guarantee you, the Move To Amend people are salivating at the chance to do this.  Social Justice is on the agenda. 

    "Formed in September 2009, Move to Amend is a coalition of hundreds of organizations and hundreds of thousands of individuals committed to social and economic justice, ending corporate rule, and building a vibrant democracy that is genuinely accountable to the people, not corporate interests."
    First of all, the Constitution set up a democratic REPUBLIC, not a democracy.  Secondly, EQUAL JUSTICE is what we are guaranteed under the Constitution.  NOT social justice or economic justice.  But oh well...
    Levin has said, in an interview I heard (but can't cite right now), that if the left hijacks this, then we know where we stand and that America is over anyway.  He says, "that's the risk we take." I'm here to say this is already hijacked by both the left and the right. I will note to my friends that no where in this discussion from COS am I hearing a move to completely restore the Constitution as written.  Is there an Article V move to reclaim the Constitution?  Not seeing that. Nor am I seeing something that somehow holds elected officials accountable for ignoring the Constitution.  (Legally we have that already...again not enforced.)  I heard from a friend that what he (the friend) wants to do is remove the 16th amendment and replace it with "The Fair Tax."  I have heard the "real" amendment behind this is a "Balanced Budget Amendment."  Then, I am hearing the amendment most desired is "Term Limits" for Congress. (which sounds very appealing to those who hate career politicians, but we have the ballot box to remove them already.  There is the term limit for the Presidency that was added by amendment, so is that the answer?  The power of the Presidency has grown beyond Constitutional limits anyway, so did that help?  How'd that work out? )  Move to Amend wants an amendment to restrict campaign contributions, but as you see above they have much more stated in their mission.  There is another one about the federal government granting "parental rights."  Folks, this is the tip of the iceberg. 

    The next question I hear is, "Well, what would you do?"  "The situation we are in is DIRE!"  "We MUST do something!"  These cries of desperation, again I understand completely, are missing the point that the same people conservatives wish to corral are behind the COS and Move To Amend propositions and want to use this opportunity to finally destroy and replace the U.S. Constitution.  I believe it is a deceitful distraction to preoccupy the malcontents, while the forces behind the efforts are busy shredding the Constitution, taking down the economic structure of the U.S., running the cultural rot industries, and dumbing down the American public even more! The whole idea is to take more power away from the American people, hand over more power to the federal government, not restore the LIMITED powers of the federal government.  Both projects allow or require the government to grant government authority not included in the Constitution.

    Maybe this is over the head of some of my friends and most people.  I don't know.  But it fills me with dismay to see people grasping at straws that will not fulfill their dreams of America that we once had and want returned to us.  It saddens me for more personal reasons as well, my heartfelt concern for the futures of my children and grandchildren.  

    I refer you all to this article written by  William F. Buckley in 1979.  And if you read this, ask yourself what is really going on here?  Do you honestly think the financial backers of the COS and / or the Move To Amend are doing this to restore the Constitution or to further erode the freedoms we were originally given?  It is pretty easy to see from the proposed amendments. 

    Is this the time for amending the Constitution with multiple amendments that, in my view, contradict the limits of the federal government?  Given what I have just told you?  I could go on with my disapproval and will continue to address this again.  Meanwhile, I hope my friends who have bought into this will step back, take a deep breath, and really really dive into the weeds to discover what is lurking here to trap us all. 


    'Two-thirds of the state legislatures, or 34, must approve an application for a convention to occur, according to the Constitution’s article five. State legislatures would then send delegates to the convention, each state getting one vote on proposed amendments. For an amendment to pass and become a part of the Constitution, it would have to be approved by three-fourths, or 38, of the state legislatures."

    Article V
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

    Did Levin take Citizen Initiatives'
    idea and then run with it?  What is the connection here?  If you poke around you will find it says it is a "public private partnership" and some advisors were Wall Street traders and also from ALEC.  For all the angst among Tea Party folks regarding ALEC and the corporate cronyism in this nation, I wonder if they even know that ALEC is involved in this.  The interesting thing that red flagged me right away about this site was the promotion of "single amendment" initiatives, but they have written several amendments ready to go. This site calls the project "Single Issue Amendment Convention."  But they have written multiple amendments, linked for you to read.  It's obvious the plan is for MANY amendments....not just one.  Strangely enough, Grover Norquist (member of the CFR) shows up again and again in this push for a Convention.  He and Michael Farris are partners in another organization: Parental Rights.org. 
    SINGLE ISSUE CONVENTION ENDORSEMENTS: Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, Al Cardenas, Chair, American Conservative Union, David Keene, Chair Emeritus, American Conservative Union, Ted Cruz, Former Solicitor General of Texas, David McIntosh. Co-Founder of the Federalist Society, Colin Hanna, President Let Freedom Ring Lew Uhler President, National Tax Limitation Committee, Charlie Black, Chair of the McCain 2008 Campaign, Michael Farris, President Parental, ALEC (The American Legislative Exchange Council), Goldwater Institute, Dr. Robert G. Natelson (Sr. Fellow ALEC and Goldwater Institute), Roman Buhler (Fdr BBA Task Force) plus many others. Members of Congress and State Legislators: Rep. John Culberson (R, TX), Rep. Henry Cuellar (D, TX), Rep. Rob Bishop (R, UT), Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R, WY), Rep. Tom McClintock (R, CA), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R, TX), Former Rep. Walt Minnick (D, ID), Del. John Overington (R, WV), Rep. Glen Bradley (R, NC), Sen. Josh McKoon, (R, GA), Sen. Bruce Tutvedt (R, MT), Rep. Peggy Mast (R, KS), Sen. Art Wittich (R, MT), Sen. Josh Brecheen (R, OK), plus hundreds of State Legislators.
    Is the Convention Of States connected to the Council On Foreign Relations? 
    Michael P. Farris is Head of Convention of the States Project, better known as a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), and President of Parentalrights.org in which Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Grover G. Norquist is the Director.  Mr. Farris is also the advisory board member of Christian Freedom International.  George Soros is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations with Grover P. Norquist.   
    - See more at: http://arkansas.securetherepublic.com/news/caution-questionable-players-in-the-convention-of-states/#sthash.I9tLLKUn.dpuf
    Is the Convention Of States connected to the Council On Foreign Relations? 
    Michael P. Farris is Head of Convention of the States Project, better known as a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), and President of Parentalrights.org in which Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Grover G. Norquist is the Director.  Mr. Farris is also the advisory board member of Christian Freedom International.  George Soros is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations with Grover P. Norquist.   
    - See more at: http://arkansas.securetherepublic.com/news/caution-questionable-players-in-the-convention-of-states/#sthash.I9tLLKUn.dpuf

    Sources of interest:
    Regarding the 25th Amendment - Birch Bayh Amendments
    Michelle Malkin on Grover Norquist

    Thursday, January 30, 2014

    STICKS AND STONES......

    ( I haven't written for a while....the holidays, family concerns, many reasons. Nevertheless, I have been still actively involved in supporting the conservative Constitutional movement.  We attended the SC Tea Party Convention a couple of weeks ago.  Still working with our local Tea Party efforts, and writing an op-ed for our local paper.  So...still here and still at it.)

    "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me?"  I think that has been debunked.  Words do hurt people and there are such things as slander and libel.  Words mean things.  

    Recently I was called an "imbecile" in a public forum for an editorial I wrote explaining that the truthful descriptions of what our government is doing should be brought back into our language.
    It's difficult to have a conversation with someone(s) who won't discuss facts.   What prompted this name-calling outburst was an editorial attempting to get a conversation started about political ideology.  I decided it is past time to fix the language problem I have encountered where people refuse to acknowledge our government policies that are communism, socialism, and fascism.  Silly me.  (The person who called me an "imbecile" insisted that Japan was a communist nation during WWII.  So...you have to take these verbal attacks and wonder what on earth has happened to historical knowledge?  I guess Hirohito might be wondering what happened to his Imperial Monarchy...not declared as a communist nation.  But, oh well.) 

    The local newspaper has a comments section that is attached to facebook.  So any comments are publicly published for anyone who accesses facebook.  That's fine.  I have no problem with that.  But what has happened is that comments section has been dominated by local Democrat Party operatives and so-called liberals.  The comments from those folks are always hateful, vitriolic, and never result in real conversation.  Their comments are full of personal attacks, either toward me or the sources of facts that I might cite in my writing.  This has happened every time my writing is published....not to say there are not a few supporters chiming into the fray, but the majority of writing in that comments section, now on facebook, has been taken over by the leftists / so-called progressives.  In truth these people are communists and / or socialists.  And they hate it when recognized for what they are.

    I've come to accept that is what will happen.  No amount of facts matter to those folks.  They cannot bear to have the truth published in the public realm for other people to read and realize.  Still I try.  But the reason it struck me to write about this today is that, while I still try, others who are educated, like to learn facts, and who still want to promote America's founding principles, are discouraged to speak out.  Who likes to be attacked?  No one.  Who wants personal attacks thrown at them all over public media such as facebook?  No one.

    The conversation has to change.  The fear has to take a backseat.  While we are chastising our representatives in DC and in state and local governments for being wimps and wussies for not standing up, many people out here are also not standing up or making their voices heard in the public sphere.  I can see why.  It's a normal, human, reaction to stay out of the line of fire.  But, we expect our representatives to do what the people are afraid to do. Voilá!  Stymied.  This actually makes representatives think there is no or little support for Tea Party values, so it's a self-defeating, circular conundrum. 

    I have hoped that by writing in the public sphere and standing up for conservative Constitutional principles, my example would give more people the courage to speak up.  Instead of caving to the sort of people who literally slander and libel Tea Party people in the public forum, the Tea Party movement must get louder and more visible.  I see Tea Party people talking to each other, ranting and raving, and generally singing to the choir.  That's o.k.  I also see some Tea Party people doing the hard work of contacting elected officials, organizing informational meetings, working in primaries, and getting the word out there.   BUT right now, the general public, because of the media, is completely blind and deaf to the efforts of the Tea Party, or worse ridiculing the Tea Party as a viable alternative to the unconstitutional, illegal acts of government.  As we know, the GOP has an element of people in it who are doing their best to shut out the Tea Party as well.  And of course the leftwing media loves to capitalize on that. 

    I don't know what the answer is exactly, but I do know that silence in the face of tyranny is acceptance.  I guess this is my way of saying, "Take it to the streets!"  We need more people putting the truth in the public forum.  I can't do it alone.  If you can't take some verbal attacks, what are you doing to help the cause of freedom?   What makes you think you can stand up to the ever encroaching statists?  Sharing information with like-minded people is a good thing.  But it has to go farther than that.