Showing posts with label Michael Farris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Farris. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2015

ARTICLE V CONVENTION LIES, CONTINUED.......

Anyone who has followed my blog probably knows by now that I don't tolerate liars.  So when I see the public getting snookered by lies, it makes me angry.  This particular subject, the Article V Convention, being promoted now in our state legislatures, is such a smoke screen of disinformation (read lies) by various groups who are attempting to remake the U.S. Constitution.

I was certain that after my last post here that there would be questions.  What lies?  Who are the liars?  Why would they lie?  Before I begin listing some of the answers to those questions, understand this convention attempt has been well organized in recent years and there are many involved. Also understand the length and breadth of the lies and the disinformation campaign is large and I can't cover all of it in this post.  I think the idea of a Constitutional Convention was taken less seriously in past decades and the powers wanting a convention were possibly not as effective for several reasons.  Past efforts were also more oriented to the left, socialist side of the political spectrum.  Today, the right (conservative + libertarian) powers have grabbed onto the idea using the Convention of States branding, joining in with the left who has been clammoring for this opportunity for so long.  Once seeing the angst appear through the tea party groups across the nation, power brokers (i.e. people with money to spend on political issues) saw that angst as an opportunity to manipulate the situation to their benefit.  I am sure there are some few altruistic conservatives who have been drawn into the fervor over a convention for all kinds of reasons.  In some respects, I feel badly for them, but not so much that my sympathy allows them to destroy our founding document.

Michael Farris (a lawyer) and Mark Meckler (another lawyer) grabbed the Tea Party movement, in my opinion to enrich themselves and gain political power.  But they didn't just one day decide to go after a Constitutional Convention.  I've explained in an earlier post that there is a billionaire named Leo Linbeck III, the son of Leo Linbeck II who was one of the instigators of the Fair Tax.  "Self Governance" is a favorite phrase of Leo III.  He hired Mark Meckler to head up a PAC called "Citizens for Self Governance."  Meckler was the Director of Tea Party Patriots prior to this ....or simultaneously, I'm not positive of the timing on that.  Meckler stepped down from Tea Party Patriots, I think to take the job for Linbeck's baby, "Citizens for Self Governance" which became the parent organization for Convention of States.  If you ask everyday tea party members, they never heard of the Linbecks, would have no idea who they are.  But they know Meckler, whose previous claim to fame before Tea Party Patriots was in the pyramid company called Herbalife.  Meckler is a salesman.  And he knows where to find rich people for fund raising. 

In the same time frame, along came Mark Levin (a lawyer) with his book called "The Liberty Amendments."  Levin pushes emotional buttons with his radio show, screams nasty epithets at people, calls people stupid, and generally purports himself as an arrogant know-it-all.  But his book sold and the tea party bought it, some of them hook, line, and sinker.  As for money behind Levin, I don't know all of that detail certainly, but I do know the advertisers on his show include Convention of States.  (Coincidentally, Convention of States began to show up as the advertisers on Glenn Beck's pages, on Hannity's pages, and many conservative blogs and news sites.  It takes a lot of money to advertise that widely.  I don't happen to believe that money came from the grassroots.  And that's the thing....this Convention of States idea didn't come from the grassroots.  It has been led all along from the top, from big money, from people getting rich on it, from billionaires such as Linbeck who believe they can gain from it. 

Enter the Koch brothers.  For all the good things they have done, and I'm sure there are some, this isn't one of them.  Their money is hooked up with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC - lots of lawyers)  to write applications for the states to use to further the COS push.  The Convention of States cooked up an "assembly" (Assembly at Mt. Vernon) in DC to coincide with an ALEC conference.  State legislators were invited, but just certain legislators, not all of course.  The Koch's were involved.  ALEC was involved.

Along the way, Mark Meckler joined with the left in conference on this.  The conference was called "Living Room Conversations."  Van Jones was participating along with many more on the left.  Meckler's purpose was to find common ground with the left in order to further the Convention of States.  See Michelle Horstman on that.  Michael Farris has been wooing tea party groups with his presentations and explaining "we" could not possibly do this without the left participating to give the whole thing legitimacy.  Hmmm.....and out of the other side of his mouth he insists that "this is our chance to rein in the federal government."  I don't know about you, but I can't honestly remember much about the left reining in the federal government.  Michael Farris insists also that this convention is ONLY to propose amendments.  And then out of the other side of his mouth, he talks about restructuring the Supreme Court, changing the appointment process for federal judges, rewriting the Commerce Clause, and more.  So, is he just going to propose amendments?  Or is he opening up the Constitution for a rewrite?  If he is going to rewrite the Commerce Clause, what else is he open to rewriting?  If he truly is just about amendments or repealing amendments, there is no reason for a convention.  You cannot have it both ways on these things.  He's lying....that's all you can conclude.  He is also saying he believes he is the person to head up the Convention, if and when it happens.  Wow....that would most certainly be a head-slamming, boomerang, whiplash of a convention with a Chairman who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

I have a theory that the billionaires are getting tired of bribing elected officials and think, due to the tea party angst, this is the time to change the game to suit their pursuits.  Possibly they think the lawyers can fix things for them.  Lobbyists and lawyers have been at it a long time.   But that's just an aside...an interjection....a wonderment.  Because I too, wonder why all the subterfuge and lies.  If a Constitutional Convention is such a great idea, especially now, why are the money players hiding behind the operatives.  Yeah, I know.  That IS what they do anyway.  But I digress.

There are many other conundrums.  For instance, the Convention of States pushers keep saying this is such a safe idea that the people have nothing to fear.  Given the fact that an Article V Convention hasn't taken place EVER, I wonder how they think they can make that promise.  Of course, they can't.  "Trust the lawyers," they say.  But if you research this at all, you'll find that many people of good credentials are warning just the opposite.  Farris says he is not afraid of the left (of Soros, etc.), but he acknowledges he is including the Soros paid operatives into the process.  I don't know  a whole lot of tea party folks who are keen on slugging it out with Soros operatives over the fine points of our Constitution.  Farris says (and his people say) that this Convention can be restricted to only amendments?  (See above) And they have devised a method of fines and punishments for delegates who might stray from the mission at hand.  Really?  Who will enforce that?  (Lawyers, I would assume, at this point.  Can't wait for those court cases ....more fun than a barrel of monkeys!)

Now look just at 4 of the amendments.  The Balanced Budget Amendment does nothing of the kind.  The Parental Rights Amendment hands over parental rights to the federal government.  The Term Limits Amendment doesn't fix corruption.  The Campaign Finance Amendment causes public financing of all candidates.  Others may have better attributes than this, but those are 4 of the most discussed. Reining in the federal government?  Doesn't appear so to me. So even the amendments are lies or at least unconstitutional on their face. 

I could go on and on, and have, but if this isn't enough to give you pause, to make you think or rethink the Article V Convention, then I don't know how to warn you further than this.  Please read the links in my previous posts on this subject.  I know that people of good will really want to get this nation on track, but this, friends, is not the answer.  O.k, now you ask, what is the answer.  Simple; Find seriously ethical and moral people who know the Constitution and want to serve our nation, put them in office and return to the enumerated powers.  That's it.  That's all we need to do. (Sorry, I know that's a big job.)

This Article V Convention is a contrivance of less than honest brokers. And these few articles I've written are just the tip of the iceberg.



See more notes and links below:

Left Right Collusion
Call a Convention devotes its efforts to getting groups on both the Right and Left to work together in order to convince state legislatures to petition Congress to call a convention.
Point one of Call a Convention’s strategy calls for the creation of a “non-partisan collaboration with other Article V and Amendments groups.” Under the “About” menu item on the Call a Convention website, there is an “Article V Advocates” webpage with the headline “The Article V Movement — Right and Left Working Together for Real Reform” (see graphic on this page). Under the headline we are told: “We are organizations and individuals from both the right and the left who recognize that Washington is broken and will not reform itself.... [We] must call a Convention, and move forward on our common ground for the good of the nation.”
Below this explanation is a list of various conservative “Article V Movement” groups, such as Mark Meckler and Michael Farris’ Convention of States (COS), Article V Caucus (of state legislators), American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force, and Compact for America. Listed along with these conservative groups are progressive liberal organizations, such as Convention USA, Amend America, ArticleV.org (“the Inter-Occupy Article V Work Group”), Call a Convention, and Wolf-PAC.

Before establishing Citizens for Self-Governance in 2012, Mark Meckler was the co-founder and national coordinator for Tea Party Patriots. In 2011, both Meckler and Lessig attended the Conference on the Constitutional Convention (ConConCon), held at Harvard University September 24-25, 2011. Meckler cohosted the event with Lessig, which, like Call a Convention, intended to bring both the Right and Left together to work toward a new constitutional convention. Also in attendance at the Harvard ConConCon was Nick Dranias of CFA.

More on the Mt. Vernon Assembly






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