Tuesday, February 18, 2014


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


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