08/21/17

Who’s Behind Civil War in America?

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Larry Grathwohl’s daughter Lindsay is a free speech activist who has been attacked by the “anti-fascist” activists. She has to wear a football helmet for self-protection. “They were throwing rocks and bricks.” Her father was an FBI informant in the communist terrorist Weather Underground.

08/18/17

Racist CNN Commentator: Statues of Washington, Jefferson and Robert E. Lee ‘All Need to Come Down’ [VIDEO]

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | I Have The Truth

President Trump predicted this and he wasn’t the only one. I did and so did many other pundits. The communists, radicals and leftists never intended to stop at taking down Confederate statues. Their real target was the Founding Fathers and destroying the heritage and history of this country. It’s what communists do. They want to destroy the Constitution and rewrite our history and propagandic media outlets such as CNN are helping to push their agenda.

CNN political commentator Angela Rye either doesn’t know history at all or is just a racist, bigoted liar. It’s true that the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson for example had slaves who he wanted to free, but could not because he had debts. By law, he was prohibited from freeing them. George Washington’s family also owned slaves, but Washington did not approve of it either. In fact, they set up our Founding Documents the way they did with careful wording so that slavery would eventually be abolished. Look it up, that’s exactly what happened. I was never taught that everything we did as a nation was perfect, but I have read our real history and our nation is a great and good one. These people want to destroy that.

From Truth Revolt:

President Trump predicted that people will start going after statues of our slave-owning Founding Fathers after Confederate monuments are taken down and he couldn’t be more right.

On Thursday, CNN political commentator Angela Rye made an impassioned plea to remove all vestiges of slave owners around the United States, saying:

“I think that we have to get to the heart of the problem here, and the heart of the problem is the way in which many of us were taught American history. American history is not all glorious… George Washington was a slave owner and we need to call slave owners out for what they are, whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not, he wasn’t protecting my freedom.”

Rye added, “My ancestors weren’t deemed human beings to him. And so, to me, I don’t care if it’s a George Washington statue, or a Thomas Jefferson statue, or a Robert E. Lee statue, they all need to come down.”

When she was confronted with the idea that she was “feeding in to Steve Bannon’s and Donald Trump’s talking points,” Rye recoiled, saying she was “calling out white supremacy for what it is.”

No, these statues should not come down. They are reminders of our past and history. I don’t see these people calling for the statues of Robert Byrd to come down, or the Lenin statue in Seattle to be removed. They hate the Founding Fathers because they were white and if you get right down to it, the primary instigators in all this are communists, who want to rip the very fabric of this nation apart. Trump is not a racist or a white supremacist. What about black supremacy and racism? Because there is sure plenty of that here as well.

This woman is disingenuous. The violence she speaks of happened all right… but whites and other races faced it as well. The first legal slave owner in America was black. And there were many white indentured slaves in America. And you might want to speak to the Chinese about slavery as well. All of this has nothing to do with modern day America and we owe nothing to these people. This will probably become the norm now as a pastor in Chicago is calling for the same thing. And someone burned an Abraham Lincoln statue there yesterday. None of these people know the first thing about our history and what’s more, they don’t care. They just want to burn it all down. One last thing… George Washington united and gave birth to this country… the Civil War sought to tear it apart. It is idiotic to compare the two.

I will close with a quote from one of my favorite writers, Daniel Greenfield: “Civilizations are built on virtue. Without virtue, there is no civilization.” Reason and virtue are in short supply in America today and our Republic is in danger of falling. An SDS radical and communist once wrote: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.”

08/17/17

Meckler Admits “Convention of States” Won’t Solve the Problem!

By Judi Caler

There may not be a question more difficult to answer for Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self-Governance and spokesman for its Convention of States Project (COS), than this:

Since the federal government ignores the Constitution as now written, why would it obey an amended Constitution?

This is a fair question, considering COS has spent several years and millions of dollars from undisclosed sources1 on paid lobbyists and “senior advisors” who crisscross the country leaning on legislators to pass resolutions asking Congress to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ostensibly to limit the federal government.

All the while, at the local level, COS has been carrying out a massive public relations campaign claiming to be a grassroots movement with a “solution as big as the problem.”

But Meckler’s group has a solution that has nothing to do with the problem! Since the problem is a federal government that has overreached its powers by ignoring our Constitution, logic alone tells us that amending our Constitution, the very document being ignored, can’t possibly fix the problem.

On 7/6/17 (Part 2 at 37:00), Mark Meckler was heard on Red Eye Radio answering that question in an interesting and illogical way:

A caller asked: “Once the amendments are proposed and ratified, how are they actually implemented?”

In response, Meckler said, “… [the amendments] just automatically become part of the Constitution…part of the structure of governance in America…and that means that government then has to begin operating according to those amendments in the same way that they do with the rest of the Constitution.”

He continued, “And functionally, ultimately that means government will shrink, they will have the authority to do less. And if they fail to follow those amendments, then obviously, there is litigation that ensues up to the federal courts and ultimately up to the Supreme Court, if necessary.” (Emphasis added.)

But wait!  COS has contended for years that the Constitution needs to be amended precisely because of decisions by activist judges who have undermined the original intent of the Constitution and allowed the federal government to usurp powers not delegated by our Constitution.

In other words, Meckler gives us a circular argument. He’s saying that COS will add more verbiage to the Constitution to counter activist judges; and then, when the federal government ignores the new wording, as they have in the past, there will be lawsuits to force the government to follow the original intent of the framers. And lawsuits generate still more decisions by activist judges!

It should be noted, too, that our Constitution already limits the federal government to its enumerated powers; and any changes such as a Balanced Budget Amendment, will expand the power of the federal government.

State governments already have the power to resist unconstitutional acts of the federal government –  they simply need a backbone!

The last caller, only 10 minutes later, hit upon the circular argument and got a different response from Meckler:

Caller: “…What happens, if say, we call a “convention of states” [and] we get some great reform amendments made to the Constitution to undo a lot of damage that has been done by activist judges and left-wing congressional majorities and presidents. What happens if we have future…laws…that violate the new amendments…and… new activist judges on the Supreme Court that then give rubber stamp approval [to the unconstitutional laws].  …Is there a bullet-proof, really good way to stop the same process from cycling over and over again after we get new amendments [at a convention]?”

Meckler: “You know, I think that’s one of the best questions there is. And I’m going to give you the short and blunt answer which is NO!”

That’s right, Mark Meckler asserts there is no way to stop the federal government from ignoring amendments proposed by a convention that later become ratified!  And the entire process places our current Constitution at risk—for what?!

Meckler elaborated philosophically: “There is no way to prevent the cycle from happening because the cycle is the cycle of human nature. In our history, you can go back to the Roman Empire and look at what happens… So, I think what happens is, you correct course, you put the ship on course, and eventually it will begin to be blown off course.

“History tells us it takes about 100 years for amendments to stop being effective…I think, for example, the first amendment about 100 years ago started to come under assault. So, it had been in place for well over 100 years; so, I expect the slide to happen.”

Let’s get this straight. The convention lobby is pouring massive resources into putting our Constitution at risk in convention because Mark Meckler is trying to steer the ship back on course, somehow predicting that in 100 years our children’s descendants will need to go through the same process, subjecting our Constitution to risk once again (assuming it survives the second federal convention he is trying so hard to invoke?) Why haven’t he, his lobbyists or “senior advisors” brought this up at legislative hearings?

Why not work on enforcing the Constitution we have, instead of rewriting 2,000 annotated pages of Supreme Court decisions, and very probably the entire Constitution? Why not encourage our State Legislators to stand up against and refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal dictates now—that’s what they are supposed to do, according to our Framers.

Article V was meant to correct defects in the Constitution, and this explains why it is not a solution for reining in an overreaching federal government.

If the main COS proponent thinks his “Solution” is a temporary “fix”; and his method of implementing Amendments resulting from an Article V convention is no different than the system that created the problem in the first place, one must wonder…

What is the real reason COS is being bankrolled to advance an Article V convention whose Delegates, as direct Representatives of the People, would have the inherent Right “to alter or to abolish” our “Form of Government”? (Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2.)

Endnote:

1 While we are unable to determine all the sources of the funding for Meckler’s group; the ultimate source of much of the funding for the push for an Article V convention is the mega billionaire Koch Brothers of Texas.

07/9/17

From Duty to be Armed to Permission to Carry

By Publius Huldah

“If the central government has the authority to tell a state it must accept permits from all the other states, then it also has the authority to tell a state it may not accept a concealed permit from any other states. If the central government can do these things it can set up a national concealed carry permit scheme and in essence bring into existence a national arms registry. That is exactly where this is headed.”  Attorney Richard D. Fry 1

Some are touting the federal Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (HR 38) as a bill which would expand our right to carry.  But if you will walk with me for a few minutes, I’ll show you a better path to take.

Let us look at the applicable First Principles, to which I propose we return.

1. Gun control is not an enumerated power delegated to the federal government

Our federal Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government any power over the Country at Large 2 to restrict our arms.  Accordingly, all pretended federal laws, regulations, orders, opinions, or treaties which purport to do so are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.  They are also unconstitutional as in violation of the Second Amendment.

The only power the federal government has over the Country at Large respecting arms is set forth at Article I, §8, clause 16 with respect to providing for the “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”.   Pursuant to this clause, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 which required every able-bodied male citizen (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and 45 to acquire a rifle, bayonet, ammo, ammo pouch, and report to his local Militia Unit for training. 3

2. What does your State Constitution say about the right to keep and bear arms?

Each State has its own Constitution which addresses its State Militia and the right to be armed.

Now listen: No State may lawfully make any law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”.

Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State’s Constitution; and is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens  to acquire firearms and ammo and report to their local Militia Unit for training!

Do you see?

Now let’s look at Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, which HR 38 proposes to amend.

3. Title 18, US Code, Part I, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional

It sets up a complex federal regulatory scheme over firearms, every word of which is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated, and as in violation of the Second Amendment.

HERE it is, look through it (§§ 921-931).

4. What HR 38 actually does

HR 38 proposes to amend this existing federal regulatory scheme to insert a new provision [to be § 926 D] to require States which have a statute which permits residents of their State to apply for a permit [!] to carry a concealed firearm

to allow persons from other States:

  • who aren’t prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms [!]; and
  • who are carrying a photographic ID issued by a government body [!]; and
  • who are carrying a concealed carry license or permit from the other State [!],

to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or “destructive device”) which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So! Even though a State Constitution, such as that for Connecticut, 4 prohibits the State Legislature from making ANY laws restricting firearms (such as imposing requirements for registration, a permit, government issued photo ID), a Citizen of Connecticut who exercises his constitutionally recognized right to carry without registration or a permit or a government issued photo ID, wouldn’t qualify under HR 38 for concealed carry in another State.

To qualify for concealed carry in other States, the Citizen of Connecticut would need his State Legislature to pass a law [which is unconstitutional under the Connecticut and federal Constitutions], so that he could comply with an unconstitutional federal statute [HR 38], so that he could carry in other States which also would have to pass unconstitutional laws imposing permit requirements on those who carry concealed.

Do you see how a God-given right [self-defense] is thus converted into a privilege which is regulated, granted, or denied, by civil government?

HR 38 also provides that any person carrying a concealed handgun in a State under the reciprocity provisions may also carry concealed in the public parts of National Parks and certain other lands under federal control.  Lest you think this a gain, consider that:  (1) The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to operate national parks and such like, and (2) the federal government has no lawful authority to impose registration requirements for carrying arms anywhere!

5. What’s the solution?

Read our Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution. Then you won’t fall for unconstitutional gimmicks like HR 38.

The gun rights organizations could perform valuable services to our Country by working for:

  • the repeal of the entire unconstitutional federal regulatory scheme respecting arms;
  • the repeal of all unconstitutional State regulatory schemes;
  • the revitalization of the State Militia to replace the federally controlled National Guard; 5 and
  • by providing more classes for Citizens in arms training.

And please stop lobbying for unconstitutional federal legislation!  

Endnotes:

1 From the late Attorney Richard D. Fry’s email of Dec. 10, 2015 to US Senator Moran, a co-sponsor of SB 498, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015.  Richard, who was my Friend, sent me a copy of his letter.

Pursuant to Article I, § 8, next to last clause, Congress has general legislative powers over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock yards, mints, federal courthouses and post offices, and such other places needed for Congress to exercise its enumerated powers.  The exercise of such powers by Congress over these small federal enclaves is restricted by the Bill of Rights – including the 2nd Amendment. So Congress is prohibited from making, for these federal enclaves, any laws which infringe the Right of The People to keep and bear Arms.  Congress may properly require individuals visiting federal prisons, the psych ward of military hospitals, the mint, federal courthouses, and such like, to leave their arms in their vehicles.  But Congress may not require Citizens to obtain and carry a permit or photo ID as a condition precedent to carrying a firearm.

3 The “Militia of the several States” were creatures of State Statutes – not of the federal government.  Dr. Edwin Vieira’s short video shows how the State Militia were replaced by the federally controlled National Guard.

4 The Constitution of the State of Connecticut says at Article I:  “SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

5 See A SERIOUS QUESTION FOR THE NRA, by Dr. Edwin Vieira, re revitalization of the Militia of the several States.  Dr. Vieira’s mind is a delight.

06/20/17

Religious & Political Reflections

By: Conservative Brew

Jefferson Memorial — Reflection

One travels more usefully alone when he travels, because he reflects more. — Thomas Jefferson

In the Republic of the United States of America, our government is a reflection of the people; that is, to the degree there is an honest media.

— Reflect on the following quotes from Thomas Jefferson —

The man who reads nothing at all, is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

How much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened.

An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.

Advertisements contain the only truth to be relied on in a newspaper.

To find out more about Conservative Brew’s thoughts about the media, visit our website >> and visit our Twitter feed Conservative Brew

As defined by Diffen.com, a republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority. In theory, all citizens have an equal say and so are treated equally by the government, especially insofar as there is a constitutional prohibition on government discrimination.

Power is not alluring to pure minds. — Thomas Jefferson

Today’s deep state controlled media lead liberals to seek to enlarge the government and give it more and more power. They believe that in doing so that they can position themselves to maintain and/or assume control of that power. However, the issue that they keep running into — and it really upsets them — is that the constitution was designed to protect the people from the government. Many liberals today would throw out the constitution if they could. It maintains a continuous thorn in their side as they work towards their globalist and collectivist agenda.

The vast majority of liberals are secular humanists who don’t actually believe that Jesus Christ is sovereign, alive, and pursuing a relationship with them. Additionally, they believe that truth is relative, that there is no such thing as THE truth (as Christians believe there is), but that truth is found by majority opinion. So from that paradigm, they seek a big government (ie. big powerful secular god) that they can control and manipulate (through propaganda) to sway public opinion (a.k.a their archetype of truth) to control the people via their fleeting irrational sentiments, emotion, and whim.

Hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the media jackals who are controlled by the deep state and who in turn control the DNC.

Republican Abraham Lincoln — Freed the Slaves.

The following information is from the Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia …

Throughout his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity”1 and a “hideous blot,”2 he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.3 Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.4 These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition.5 In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans.6 In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories.7But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation.

Here’s the hope!

Well before we get into the hope, let’s make a few things abundantly clear. We are more than a bit irreverent and certainly not politically correct. As George Carlin stated, “Political Correctness is fascism attempting to appear as manners.” It can make for some great entertainment when you try and create peer pressure for us to become what you consider politically correct — good luck with that 🙂

If you’ve made it this far, and you are one of our liberal friends, you are either not easily triggered or reading this post has taken you three days — either way congrats. We can be friends. We’ll not stop giving you a hard time for your folly, but we can be friends.

Here’s where we’re headed. We’re not trying to convert the left. We’re entertaining and facilitating communication for a family of Christian Conservatives. We believe that together we can manifest the Kingdom of Heaven on earth — not through legislating morality, but through raising awareness in Patriots that the government is a reflection of their hearts and minds. We seek liberty at all costs! It was for liberty that Christ set us free.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government. — Thomas Jefferson

06/3/17

The George Mason Fabrication

By Publius Huldah 1

“…of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants. Federalist No. 1 (5th para), Alexander Hamilton.

Those who have read Article I, §8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution know that it delegates only a tiny handful of powers (over the Country at large) to the federal government.

They also know that, for the last 100 years, the federal government has violated the Constitution by usurping thousands of powers not delegated.

So what do we do about it?

1. The silly answer of the convention lobby

The convention lobby says that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

Now think about that:  When a spouse violates the marriage vows, is the solution is to change the marriage vows? When people ignore speed limits, is the solution to change the speed limits?  When people violate the Ten Commandments, is the solution to change the Ten Commandments?

Of course not!  The solution is obedience: to the Constitution, the marriage vows, the speed limits, and God.

But the convention lobby moves from silliness to insidiousness:  They say we can only get the amendments we need at an Article V convention.

2. Why do they want a convention?

From the beginning, the enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it:  On Aug. 31, 1787, George Mason said “he would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands”; and if it wasn’t changed to suit his views, he wanted another general convention. 2

Such demands for another convention were made throughout the ratification process, and continued after our Constitution was ratified by the ninth State on June 21, 1788.  James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, among others, addressed these demands in their writings.

A convention is the vehicle for getting a new Constitution. Today’s enemies of our Constitution are spending vast sums of money to buy an Article V convention.  Their hirelings are propagandizing the People and are pushing State Legislatures all over our Country to apply to Congress to call a convention.

Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amendment:

  • Congress proposes amendments and sends them to the States for ratification; or
  • Congress calls a convention if two thirds of the States apply for it.

Our existing 27 Amendments were obtained under the first method.  We’ve never used the convention method because until recently, Americans understood the danger.

James Madison wrote in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and if there were another convention, “the most violent partizans”, and “individuals of insidious views” would strive to be delegates and would have “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. 3

Alexander Hamilton “dreaded” the consequences of another convention because he knew that enemies of our Constitution wanted to get rid of it:  Federalist No. 85. 4  

The same goes for today.  If there is an Article V convention, our enemies will have the opportunity to get rid of our existing Constitution and impose a new one. 5

Different factions already have new Constitutions in hand or in preparation in anticipation of an Article V convention. 6

The globalist elite [the Bush family, et al] want to move our Country into the North American Union (NAU).  Under the NAU, Canada, the United States, and Mexico merge, and a Parliament is set up over them.  Until recently, a copy of the Task Force Report on the NAU was posted at the website of the Council on Foreign Relations; now one must purchase a copy.  The globalists need a new Constitution for the United States which transforms us from a sovereign nation to a member state of the NAU. To get this new Constitution, they need an Article V convention.  See this brief commentary .

Now that you see what’s at stake, let’s return to the claims of the convention lobby.

3. The Revisionist Account of the federal convention of 1787

The convention lobby claims that, at the federal convention of 1787 where our present Constitution was drafted, our Framers gave us the Article V convention as the “solution” to federal usurpations.  E.g., Michael Farris wrote: 7   

“George Mason demanded that this provision [the convention method of proposing amendments] be included in Article V because he correctly forecast the situation we face today. He predicted that Washington, D.C. would violate its constitutional limitations and the States would need to make adjustments to the constitutional text in order to rein in the abuse of power by the federal government.”  [boldface mine]

But Mason didn’t say that.  Nor did any other delegates say that.  They weren’t silly men; and they understood that amendments have a very different purpose.

4. Our Framers said the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution

James Madison was a delegate to the federal convention of 1787, and kept a Journal.  I went through it, collected every reference to what became Article V, and wrote it up – here it is.  Madison’s Journal shows what the Framers really said about the purpose of amendments:

  • Elbridge Gerry said on June 5, 1787, the “novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision”.
  • George Mason said on June 11, 1787:

The Constitution now being formed “will certainly be defective”, as the Articles of Confederation have been found to be. “Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.  It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent…” [boldface mine]

  • Alexander Hamilton said on 10, 1787 amendments remedy defects in the Constitution.

Other primary source writings of the time show:

  • useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th para).
  • “amendment of errors” and “useful alterations” would be suggested by experience (Federalist No. 43 at 8.)
  • If “… the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates …”  (Washington’s Farewell Address, page 19) 8

That’s what they really said.

Amendments can’t “rein in” the federal government when it “violates its constitutional limitations” because when it does so, it is ignoring the existing limitations on its powers. We cannot fix federal usurpations of non-delegated powers by amending the Constitution to say the federal government cannot do what the Constitution never gave it the power to do in the first place!

And look at recent history:  The 1st Amendment didn’t stop them from banning Christian speech in the public square. The 2nd Amendment didn’t stop them from regulating the sale of firearms. The 4th Amendment didn’t stop them from spying on us without a warrant. The 5th Amendment didn’t stop them from regulatory takings.  The 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from usurping thousands of other powers not delegated.

Now let’s look at the words of George Mason which the convention lobby has twisted and taken out of context in an attempt to justify their absurd and ruinous claim.

5. The Dispute over the proper role of Congress in the amendment process

Under the Articles of Confederation (ART. 13), amendments had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States.

The dispute at the federal convention of 1787 was whether Congress – under the second Constitution then being drafted – should have any power over the amendment process.

Madison wanted Congress to propose all amendments, either on their own initiative or at the request of two thirds of the States.  On Sep. 10, 1787, he proposed this wording for Article V:

“The Legislature of the United States, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution …”

But Mason said the States should be able to propose amendments without having to depend on Congress.  On Sep. 15, 1787, Mason said, respecting Madison’s proposed wording:

“As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, and in the second ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind, would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

Now remember!  Mason agreed with the other delegates that the purpose of amendments is to remedy defects in the Constitution. Mason’s concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments which would be needed to correct defects.

Footnote 8 shows that the 11th Amendment was adopted to correct what the States saw as a defect in the powers delegated to the federal courts.  The 11th Amendment removed that delegated power from the federal courts.  But what if Congress hadn’t agreed to propose that amendment?  That type of scenario is what Mason’s words addressed.

Here are examples of other defects Congress might not agree to fix by amendment:

  • The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional – it was authorized by Art. I, 8, clause 1. But it was oppressive because it benefited infant industries in the North at the expense of the Southern States.  An amendment could provide that tariffs may be imposed only to raise revenue to carry out the delegated powers of the federal government; and may not be imposed to benefit domestic industries, or to benefit one part of the Country at the expense of another part.  But Congress might not agree.
  • Slavery was permitted under our original Constitution. The federal fugitive slave laws (Art. IV, §2, clause 3) were oppressive.  Slavery is a defect to be repaired by amendment.  But Congress might not agree.

Do you see?  Mason’s words, read together, show that his concern was that Congress might not agree to amendments the States wanted to correct defects in the federal Constitution.  

Neither Mason nor anyone else was so silly as to say that when the federal government “violates its constitutional limitations”, the solution is to amend the Constitution.

6. Why was the convention method added to Article V?

That the convention method was added doesn’t mean that all thought it a terrific idea.  It was a compromise; and the delegates knew they couldn’t keep future generations from doing what they themselves had already done twice:  Invoking the Right, acknowledged in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off one government and set up a new one. They invoked that Right during 1776 to throw off the British Monarchy; and during 1787, they invoked it again to throw off the Articles of Confederation – and the government it had created – and set up a new Constitution which created a new government.

In Federalist No. 40 (15th para), Madison specifically invoked this Right as justification for what they did at the federal convention of 1787: They ignored the Resolution of February 21, 1787 of the Continental Congress which called the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”; they ignored the instructions from their States; 9 and they drafted a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification (only 9 States needed to ratify our Constitution of 1787).

There is nothing which can stop the delegates to an Article V convention from doing the same thing.  And rememberNew Constitutions are already prepared or in the works.

7. What’s our real problem? Let’s man-up and address that

Our problem today is not a defective Constitution.  Our problem is ignorance, loss of virtue, and disobedience.  Our Framers expected us to be virtuous and informed; and the States to resist federal usurpations. 10

Are we no longer worthy of the Constitution our Framers gave us?  If not, the globalists have plans for us, and they need an Article V convention to impose them.

Don’t fall into the trap they have set for us.  Open your eyes.

Endnotes:

1 My friend Don Fotheringham and I discussed this issue; this paper reflects his valuable insights.  His paper, “Article V is Deliberately Vague”, is HERE; and his excellent book, “The President Makers: How Billionaires Control U.S. and Foreign Policy”, is HERE.

2 Mason didn’t chop off his right hand.  He, along with Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry, refused to sign the Constitution:  see Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention for Sep. 17, 1787.  Randolph wanted the States to be able to propose amendments to the proposed Constitution, and then all would be submitted to and finally decided on by another general convention:  Aug. 31, Sep. 10, and Sep. 15, 1787.  Gerry’s objections to the proposed Constitution were such that “the best that could be done…was to provide for a second general Convention”:  Sep. 15, 1787.

Note well: The federal convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and all referred to it as a “general convention” [search HERE for “general convention”, and you will see].  And in Madison’s Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville, he writes,

 “…3. If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed …” [boldface mine]

An Article V convention is a “general convention”.

3 Madison opposed the convention method: Federalist No. 49 (Feb. 1788); his letter  to Turberville of Nov. 2, 1788; his letter to George Eve of Jan. 2, 1789; and on June 8, 1789, he circumvented the application previously submitted by Virginia on May 5, 1789 for an Article V convention, by introducing into Congress a proposed “bill of rights”.  That is the procedure we have followed ever since: When States want amendments, they instruct their congressional delegation to propose them.

4 In Federalist No. 85 (Aug. 1788), Hamilton addressed the arguments of antifederalists who wanted another convention so they could get rid of our newly ratified Constitution.  The “excellent little pamphlet” he refers to (9th para) was written during April 1788 by John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States) and shows:

“the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded.”

Jay warned in his Pamphlet that a new convention would run “extravagant risques” [risks]. 

5 Even though Article V speaks of “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the delegates will have the “self-evident” power, recognized in the 2nd para of our Declaration of Independence, to throw off our existing Form of Government and set up a new Constitution which creates a new government.  And since the new Constitution drafted at an Article V convention will also have its own new mode of ratification, it is sure to be approved.

6 The proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America is ratified by a national referendum [Art 12, § 1].  Here’s the proposed Constitution for “The New Socialist Republic in North America”.

The Constitution 2020 movement is backed by George Soros, Eric Holder, Cass Sunstein, and Marxist law professors.  They want a progressive Constitution in place by the year 2020.

7 Farris’ paper, “Answering the John Birch Society Questions about Article V”, is HERE on the COS website; the copy I preserved is HERE.

8 Our Constitution originally delegated to federal courts the power to hear cases “between a State and Citizens of another State” (Art. III, §2, cl. 1).  But when a Citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia, the States were outraged!  See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).  So the 11th Amendment was ratified to take away from the federal courts the power to hear such cases.

9 ART. 13 of the Articles of Confederation required amendments to be agreed to by Congress and all of the StatesHERE are the instructions the States gave delegates to the federal convention of 1787:

  • “alterations to the Federal Constitution which, when agreed to by Congress and the several States, would become effective”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, S. Carolina, Maryland, & New Hampshire.
  • for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution”: Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Delaware, and Georgia;
  • for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”: New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
  • “provisions to make the Constitution of the federal Government adequate”: New Jersey

10 Nullification Made Easy and What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power?

03/7/17

Allo and the 4th Amendment

By: T F Stern | T F Stern’s Rantings

There’s a new program available from Google for Messaging, it’s called Alloand the download is free according to their promotion.

“Google will use that data to improve parts of the app, such as its smart replies feature. That will allow the app to read through conversations and try and work out how people talk – it can then use that data to suggest what they might want to say to their friends.”

Wonderful, now your smart phone can figure out what you might say before you’ve come up with the words on your own…But that’s not nearly as important as Google storing everything you’ve said so they can plan a marketing strategy based on your interests.

Unlike other messaging programs, Google will save everything you say… Forever.

“… By keeping track of all messages, Allo conversations will be accessible by law enforcement with warrants…”

The courts have ignored the intent of our Founders when they wrote down the Bill of Rights to be added to our Constitution.  These black robed jurists somehow think that electronic conversations aren’t covered the same way as other forms of communication.  After all, Thomas Jefferson didn’t have a Smart Phone so those aren’t the same as letters mailed or hand delivered during correspondence.

4th Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Government agencies have been ignoring the 4th Amendment for so long now as to make it obsolete.

Go to any airport and watch as passengers awaiting boarding are randomly pulled out of line for invasive body searches.  There is no probable cause for searches, no warrant from a judge…but it’s for the safety of everyone… so we ‘voluntarily’ abandon the 4th Amendment because it might stop an Islamic Terrorist from taking out the Empire State Building while murdering hundreds of innocent citizens.

Under the same pretense of protecting us from Islamic Terrorists, substitute ‘other dangers’ if that term makes you uncomfortable, the NSA listens in on just about every conversation that hits the air.  Supposedly they only listen in on folks considered terrorists;  but… that opens the door to listening in on just about anyone for just about any reason.

According to Edward Snowden, famous for leaking more information than was thought possible, government agencies listen in, with or without warrants and keep everything they come across, doesn’t matter what it is, it gets filed away.  Someday they might use that information to embarrass or humiliate someone running for high office… Nah, that would never happen.

Then there’s the idea that the 4th Amendment isn’t in play if you are within a hundred miles of the border or point of entry into the country.  That must have been part of the digital recording that Thomas Jefferson had deleted when he and the other Founders were formulating the best ways to protect individual God given inalienable rights.

As a police officer it was part of my job to inform you that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, it’s part of the Miranda Warning given to suspects upon their arrest.

In our day you had better understand that anything you say can and will be used…for what ever Google, its advertisers or the government wants to do with it.  You have no rights in a totalitarian state.

This article has been cross posted to The Self Educated American, a publication whose banner reads, “Standing Fast By the Judeo-Christian Heritage, Limited Government and the U.S. Constitution”.

02/21/17

Rep. Karen Bass Admits to Communist Party Mentor

By: Trevor Loudon | New Zeal

Los Angeles Congresswoman Karen Bass owes her career to a Communist Party USA mentor.

Rep. Karen Bass, second from left

According to the Congressional Record:

HON. KAREN BASS OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Monday, January 30, 2017;

Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the life and memory of my friend and mentor, Oneil COneil Marion Cannon]], who passed away on January 20, days before his 100th birthday….

“Oneil was instrumental in supporting my own work as a community organizer early in my life, and without his help my life would have taken a very different path…

I would like to salute Oneil Cannon for his longstanding commitment to serving and uplifting others, and for a century of fighting to make the world a better place.”

Oneil Cannon

The late Oneil Cannon in question was a fixture of the Los Angeles left.

According to the Peoples World:

As a member of the Communist Party, he became the education director in the Southern California District, and a member of the Party’s Southern California and National Central Committees…

Oneil was committed to electing Black and Latino representatives at all levels of government. He helped to elect Augustus Hawkins, Tom Bradley, Ed Roybal, Diane Watson, Maxine Waters, and Karen Bass.

Cannon campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008, and wept with joy along with millions of others when he was elected. He died peacefully, wearing one of his Obama T-shirts.

With decades of communist activity under her belt, Karen Bass would fail an FBI background check to work as a realtor or a school bus driver.

But that’s okay, there are no security checks to serve on any Congressional Committee: not the Armed Services, not Homeland Security, not even the Intelligence Committee.

If American voters understood how bad the infiltration is they would be horrified. There are many, many more like Karen Bass, trashing your Constitution every day.

To really understand how bad the problem is, check out my movie The Enemies Within.

01/5/17

AmmoMan.com is pushing security-minded Americans to cover up computer cameras with “Lens Liberator”

By: Eric the AmmoMan | AmmoMan

Facebook found Mark Zuckerberg and FBI Director James Comey are two high-profile, relatively tech-savvy individuals who cover their computer cameras up to prevent a potential hack.

With relative ease, foreign and domestic hackers have proven they can gain access to computer camera footage and in some cases have been known to exploit whatever that camera sees for financial gain.

It’s enough of a problem that James Comey blocks his camera with tape and suggests the general public consider it as well.

“You go into any government office and we all have the little camera things that sit on top of the screen,” Comey said during a conference in the fall. “They all have a little lid that closes down on them. “You do that so that people who don’t have authority don’t look at you. I think that’s a good thing.”

In other words, while you can have strong passwords and even firewalls on your network to help defend against hackers, you should still take additional steps to protect yourself against hackers who might to try to access your camera.

To help make it easier (and less of an eye-sore) AmmoMan.com is pushing security-minded Americans to cover up their computer cameras with something they call the “Lens Liberator”.

Cut in two different sizes to best fit your computer or smartphone camera lens, the Lens Liberator promises “complete annihilation of privacy-breaching photons” that might make their way to your computer’s camera lens and put your privacy at risk.

The small, custom made one-half and three-quarter inch stickers are re-stickable. So, users can easily remove the sticker to access their camera as they see fit. While supplies last, 10,000 of the Lens Liberators are available for free to any American who requests one be sent to them.

“While we deal mostly with firearms and ammunition, security is about more than just gunpowder and the shooting guns,” Eric Schepps of AmmoMan.com said. “We see this as a good opportunity to help the shooting community take the proper steps to secure other aspects of their life.”

Liberating Your Lens – A Look at Domestic Spying and Cyber Security in the U.S.A. – An infographic by the team at Lens Liberator

12/16/16

Balanced Budget Amendment: The Solution? Or Deathblow?

By: Publius Huldah

The BBA Made Simple

Say you want your Butler to buy some groceries; so you give him your credit card.  You can:

  1. Give him an ENUMERATED LIST of what you want him to buy: 1 chicken, 5# of apples, two heads of cabbage, a 2# sack of brown rice, and a dozen eggs.  Whatever amount he spends for these enumerated items will be charged to you.
  1. Tell him he may spend on whatever he wants, and ask him to please don’t spend more than 18% of your weekly income. But whatever amount he decides to spend (on pork and other things) will be charged to you.

The first illustrates how our Constitution is written:  The items on which Congress is authorized to spend money are listed – enumerated – in the Constitution.  To see the list, go HERE.

The second illustrates how a balanced budget amendment (BBA) works:  It creates a completely new constitutional authority to spend on whatever the federal government wants to spend money on.  And there is no enforceable limit on the amount of spending.

Our Constitution Limits Spending to the Enumerated Powers

Our Constitution doesn’t permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want.  If Congress obeyed our Constitution, they would limit spending to the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money, excessive federal spending is not the result of a defective Constitution, but of disregarding the existing constitutional limitations on federal spending.

Because everyone has ignored these existing limitations for so long, we now have a national debt of some $20 trillion plus a hundred or so trillion in unfunded liabilities. 1

Various factions are now telling conservatives that the only way to stop out of control federal spending is with a BBA.

Obviously, that is not true.  The constitutional answer is to downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers.  Eliminate federal departments (Education, Energy, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc., etc.), for which there is no constitutional authority.  2

Since our Constitution delegates only a handful of powers to the federal government, most of what they’ve spent money on since the early 1900s is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.

Yet our Constitution is still legally in place; and can be dusted off, read, and enforced by a Repentant People.  They can shrink the federal government to the size established by the Constitution which created it. 3

Using the Federal “Budget” to Snap the Trap on an Unsuspecting People

Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

Spending is to be limited by the enumerated powers.  Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, the Treasury is to publish periodic Statements and Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditures.  Since the list of objects on which Congress is authorized to spend money is so short, it would be a simple matter to monitor federal spending and receipts.

But since the unconstitutional Budget & Accounting Act of 1921, Presidents and Congress have been putting into the “budget” whatever they want to spend money on.

Do you see that if the federal government is given constitutional authority (via a BBA) to spend money on whatever they want, they are ipso facto granted constitutional authority to exert power over whatever they want?

Oh, Americans!  False friends lead you astray and confuse the path you should take.  Under the pretext of imposing “fiscal responsibility” with a BBA, they would legalize the totalitarian dictatorship which has been developing in this Country for 100 years.

Creating the all-powerful federal government by Amendment

A BBA changes the standard for spending from whether the object is an enumerated power to whatever the federal government wants to spend money on. 4

So a BBA would transform the federal government created by our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to one of general and unlimited powers because it would authorize Congress to appropriate funds for – and hence have power over – whatever they or the President decide to put in the budget!

A BBA Doesn’t Reduce Federal Spending

A BBA wouldn’t reduce federal spending because:

  • All versions permit spending limits to be waived when Congress votes to waive them; and
  • Congress can always “balance the budget” with tax increases. Compact for America’s “balanced budget amendment” delegates massive new taxing authority to Congress:  it authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax (VAT) in addition to keeping the income tax.

Typical Misconceptions

Americans think, “I have to balance my budget; so the federal government should have to balance theirs.”

They overlook the profound distinctions between the economies of their own family unit and that of the national government of a Federation of States.  Our federal Constitution sets up a system where Congress is to appropriate funds only to carry out the enumerated powers; and the bills are to be paid with receipts from excise taxes and import tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by a direct assessment on the States apportioned according to population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

Americans also think that since States have balanced budget amendments, the federal government should have one.  They overlook the profound distinction between the federal Constitution and State Constitutions:  5

  • The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of enumerated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes.
  • But State Constitutions created State governments of general and almost unlimited powers. Accordingly, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything.  So State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.

Conclusion

A BBA would have the opposite effect of what you have been told.  Instead of limiting the federal government, it legalizes spending which is now unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers; transforms the federal government into one which has power over whatever they decide to spend money on; and does nothing to reduce federal spending.

Twenty-eight States have already passed applications for a BBA.  Go HERE to check the status of your State.  Warn your friends and State Legislators.  For a model your State can use to rescind its previous applications, go HERE and look under “Take Action” column, or contact me.  Do not let the malignant elite complete their revolution by replacing our Constitution.

Endnotes:

1 State governments are voracious consumers of federal funds.  THIS shows what percentage of your State’s revenue is from federal funds.  Contrary to what RINO State Legislators say, they don’t want federal spending reduced: They want to keep those federal dollars flooding in.

2 George Washington’s Cabinet had 4 members:  Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General.

3 Our federal Constitution is short and easy to understand.  The only way you can avoid being misled is to find out for yourself what it says.  Be a Berean (Acts 17:10-12).

4 Amendments change all language to the contrary in the existing Constitution.  Eg., the 13th Amendment changed Art. I, §2, clause 3 & Art. IV, §2, clause 3 because they were inconsistent with the 13th Amendment.

5 In Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end), James Madison said:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”