Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States – Updated


TheBlaze: Close to 100 legislators from 32 states met in Mount Vernon, Va., Saturday to discuss the possibility of adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution through a convention of the states.

Such a convention, as outlined in article five of the Constitution, would allow state legislatures to vote on amendments to add.

Opened & closed with prayer…#MountVernonAssembly pic.twitter.com/WRg9EZscF3

— KevinJones (@kevinicolejones) December 7, 2013

The proposed resolution at the #MountVernonAssembly #ArticleV pic.twitter.com/8YGlnupPiO

— Brett Hildabrand (@Brett4ks) December 7, 2013

No constitutional amendment has been added this way, but some say the Constitution specifically allows for states to use the convention as a means to push back against the federal government.

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 legislature

The historic #MountVernonAssembly begins #liberty #federalism I’m proud to represent Arkansas with @NateBell4AR @Bob_Ballinger Rep.Alexander

Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States December 7, 2013 9:01am via Twitter for iPhone ReplyRetweetFavorite

Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of [email protected]

Sen. Jason Rapert

Lawmakers on Saturday discussed term limits on U.S. lawmakers and certain limits on federal taxation and spending as possible amendments, Red Millennial noted.

State legislators stressed Saturday the bipartisan nature of support for the discussed amendments, citing a recent poll that shows 74 percent of Americans support a balanced budget amendment while another 75 percent support congressional term limits.

Saturday’s Mount Vernon meeting was organized by Indiana state Sen. David Long and Wisconsin Rep. Chris Kapenga.

Senator Kelli Ward @kelliwardaz


Joining with 97 legislators from 32 states to assert the role of state government in a time of massive…

1:12 PM – 7 Dec 2013

There has been growing support for the idea of a convention, but there is also healthy skepticism.

Still, regardless of whether one thinks it’s a realistic idea, Virginia and South Carolina have both pre-filed applications for a convention, meaning some are taking the idea very seriously.

Video: Aiken Lawmaker Files Bill For Convention… new constitutional amendments

Saturday’s meeting represents the most recent attempt by legislators to discuss seriously the possibility of adding amendments to the Constitution through a convention.

Here is a response from Florida State Senator Alan Hays regarding last Saturday’s Mount Vernon Assembly.

“We discussed the process of bringing the Article V convention into reality and agreed to meet next year at a time yet to be determined due to the need to meet when state legislatures are adjourned or in recess. That will assure more participation. We also discussed a possible resolution to go to each state requesting their legislatures establish a selection process for delegates to be attending an Article V. Convention.”

“We recognized the need for wide communication to the public of our work. I feel it was a very good first step toward success.”

Alan Hays

Folks, this Article V movement is off the ground!

From ConventionofStates.com:

Are you nervous about calling your state legislators? Here’s what you do:

1. Find their contact number. Most state legislatures have a website where you’ll find all the contact information you need. Just do an internet search: “[My State] State Legislature.”;

2. Call them. Try to use a landline, as this will give you the clearest signal. You don’t want to drop this call!

3. Introduce yourself and thank them for their service: “Hi, my name is [Your Name]. I live in your district, and I appreciate your service in our state legislature.”;

4. Explain why you’ve called: “I’m calling because I’d like to talk to you about an opportunity the states have to take back power from the federal government.”

5. Explain the problem: “Almost everyone knows our federal government is on a dangerous course. The unsustainable debt combined with crushing regulations on states and businesses is a recipe for disaster.”

6. Explain the solution: “Fortunately, the Founders gave state legislatures the power to make changes to the federal structure when Washington, D.C., starts to abuse its authority. Article V of the Constitution authorizes the state legislatures to call a convention for the limited purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.”

7. Explain the COS Project: “The Convention of States Project was launched to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments that impose fiscal restraints and limit the power of the federal government.”

8. Voice your support: “I support this approach. I want [name of your State] to be one of the necessary 34 states that passes a resolution calling for a Convention of the States. You can find a copy of the draft resolution and a legislator’s handbook (which briefly explains the process and answers many questions) at www.conventionofstates.com.”

9. Give them an action step: “I ask you to support the Convention of States Project and become either the lead sponsor or co-sponsor of a resolution in the next legislative session.”

10. Thank them again and give them some contact info: “Thanks so much for your service to the people of our district. You can reach the COS Project at [email protected] or call them at 540-441-7227.”

When you finish your conversation, let us know what your state representative thinks! We need a legislator to sponsor our application in every state, and we’d love to talk to a state congressman from your area. That’s it! Of course, it’s always best to use your own words and explain it however you feel most comfortable. We’ve provided this outline as a guide. Good luck! – The COS Project Team

Glenn Beck Declares ‘Convention of States’ Is the ‘Only Way Back’

Book: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (Kindle)


Mandela Lied but Communism Never Died

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Bill Keller of The New York Times admits Nelson Mandela was a communist, but suggests it doesn’t really matter because communism collapsed. But communism never died in South Africa. Mandela lied about his party membership, for the obvious purpose of confusing and deceiving people about what is really going on in South Africa. This deception makes it easier to force U.S. taxpayers to contribute approximately $500 million a year to help the communists in South Africa consolidate and expand their power.

South Africa is called a multiparty democracy, but the ruling African National Congress, which won 65.9% of the vote in the 2009 elections, is a front for the South African Communist Party (SACP). South Africa today is effectively a one-party state run by communists.

Officially, the SACP describes itself as a “partner” in the Tripartite Alliance consisting of the African National Congress and the Congress of South African Trade Unions.

This formulation masks the fact that the current president, Comrade Jacob Zuma, is a “former” SACP high-ranking member who continues to work openly with communists. He is the figure who announced Mandela’s death.

Zuma’s “missing years” have received some attention. Journalist David Beresford noted that although Zuma has been a life-long communist, he “seems to have been anxious not to have this detail widely known,” since his SACP membership was omitted from his government and ANC biographies.

Zuma spoke to a 2010 meeting of the Young Communist League National Congress after he had returned from communist Cuba, where he received the top honor, the Order of Jose Marti. “Our relations with Cuba were cemented by the blood of heroic Cuban soldiers who died in combat in Africa, especially in Angola, who paid the supreme sacrifice for their belief in freedom, justice and anti-imperialism,” he said. This was a reference to the support given by the Soviet Union and its client, Cuba, to communist takeovers in Africa.

But none dare call this “imperialism.”

Interestingly, this speech appears on the website of the ANC, but not on the website of Zuma’s presidential office.

In the speech, he told the young communists that “the lessons we have learnt in Cuba confirm the correctness of our policy positions in making education and health some of our key priorities as government, the ruling party and the ruling alliance.” He also praised the “Cuban Five,” Castro’s spies imprisoned in the U.S.

Lauding the Cuban Communist Party dictatorship and one-party state, he told the young communists: “One of the major lessons we must glean from Cuba is the depth of their internationalism and patriotism, and how they successfully balanced these two to produce good citizens for their country and the world. The Cuban value system is based on patriotism, national pride and a very deep sense of national history, culture and is based on an ethic of hard work. As Young Communist League members you must engage with these issues and devise ways and means of how you can instill the same kind of values, and a deep sense of patriotism in our country.”

“Work begins today in earnest to improve the quality of life of all our people and to build Cuban-style patriotism and internationalism within our ranks,” he concluded.

Is communism dead in South Africa? It doesn’t appear so.

Zuma told them, “You need to have a clear understanding of dialectical and historical materialism. You need to be armed with a theory of the working class Marxism Leninism. You need to understand this theory as a guide to action.”

The deputy president of South Africa, Kgalema Motlanthe, spoke at the South African Communist Party`s 91st Celebratory Gala Dinner in 2012 and described the relationship between the ANC and SACP. He said, “Because the relationship between the SACP and the ANC is and has always been familial, it can best be described as that of siblings; brothers—with the ANC being the elder brother while the SACP is the younger brother.” He went on, “…in the course of time it turned out that the SACP would become the responsible younger brother who gives back by becoming a teacher to the older brother. This equipped those of us in the ANC with the necessary tools of analysis and education needed for us to develop ourselves and successfully prosecute the struggle.”

Incredibly, Bill Keller of The New York Times maintains that “Mandela’s brief membership in the South African Communist Party, and his long-term alliance with more devout Communists, say less about his ideology than about his pragmatism.” The claim is ridiculous on its face. And paying tribute to Muammar Gaddafi after the Libyan leader bombed Pan Am 103 out of the sky, killing 189 Americans, is more evidence of this pragmatism? How can The New York Times publish this nonsense?

The South African Communist Party has now admitted that Mandela was not only a member, but a member of its important Central Committee. Keller seems unaware of this fact. If Mandela’s membership was “brief” and of no consequence, why did Mandela lie about it? And why did the SACP cover it up until after Mandela died?

Regarding the relationship between the ANC and the SACP, there is no better authority than Mandela himself. He served as president of the ANC (1991-1997) during some of the time he served as president of South Africa (1994-1999). “It is not given to a leader of one political organization in a country to sing praises to the virtues of another,” Mandela said, speaking as ANC president in 1995. “But that is what I intend to do today. If anything, this signifies the unique relationship between the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party. It is a relationship that has detractors in abundance; a relationship that has its prolific obituary scribes. But it is a relationship that always disappoints these experts. Because it was tempered in struggle. It is written in the blood of many martyrs. And, today, it is reinforced by hard-won victory.”

The fact needs to be repeated: the ruling ANC is a front for the South African Communist Party. Mandela’s leadership of both groups helps demonstrate this fact.

While dismissing the idea that Soviet-style communism is alive in South Africa, Bill Keller of The New York Times mentions the work of Stephen Ellis, who discovered notes of an SACP meeting confirming Mandela’s party membership. Ellis disclosed these notes in 2011 and wrote about them in his 2012 book, External Mission. Keller, perhaps somewhat troubled by this information, goes on to add the following: “Professor Ellis is no apologist for white rule—he occupies a university chair in Amsterdam named for another hero of the South African resistance, Archbishop Desmond Tutu—but he contends that the affiliation with the Communists shaped the A.N.C.’s ideology in ways that endure, ominously, to this day.”

Ellis told Keller in an email exchange: “Today, the A.N.C. officially claims still to be at the first stage … of a two-phase revolution. This is a theory obtained directly from Soviet thinking.”

In other words, these communists are true believers. Communism has not collapsed as far as they are concerned. That would include Mandela, and helps explain his cordial relations with Arafat, Castro, Gaddafi, and so on over the years.

The erroneous assumption being made by the media and various politicians and commentators is that the immediate failure to wipe out South Africa’s white minority demonstrated the moderation of the new South African regime.

The ruling communists in South Africa are practicing what is called the “two-phase revolution.” The first phase is the success of the “national liberation movement” in Soviet revolutionary theory. In the case of South Africa, it’s called the “national democratic revolution.” This is the phase in which non-communists are used as dupes. The second phase, under SACP leadership, is the “socialist revolution” and the introduction of a “workers’ state” (also known as a people’s democracy). In this phase, the so-called “vanguard element” comes forward and eliminates its former democratic and liberal allies.

The amazing thing about all of this is that it’s out in the open on the SACP website in the document, “The South African Road to Socialism.” The document covers the period from 2012 to 2017. It warns about a “one-sided emphasis on democracy as regular multi-party elections…”

It would be nice if our reporters, as well as those giving honor and tribute to Mandela, would spend a few minutes trying to understand the “fundamental transformation” of South Africa. Another part of this process, according to the document, is the “mobilization of private capital into an NDR [National Democratic Revolution] struggle” (page 48). The “struggle” also entails “rolling back” and “transforming” the capitalist market (page 51).

It sounds something like the “fundamental transformation” of the United States.

By admitting Mandela was a high-ranking member, the SACP may be signaling that the second phase of the “socialist revolution” is about to get underway in South Africa. “For the SACP the passing away of Madiba [Mandela] must give all those South Africans who had not fully embraced a democratic South Africa, and who still in one way or the other hanker to the era of white domination, a second chance to come to terms with a democratic South Africa founded on the principle of majority rule,” the communist organization says.

The phrase “coming to terms” brings to mind the new anti-white party in South Africa called the “Economic Freedom Fighters” (EFF), which displayed a banner reading “Honeymoon is over for whites.”

Ominously, the Google search engine ran a tribute to Mandela on its home page directing the world to the Nelson Mandela Center of Memory website and a poster featuring a quotation of Mandela under an image of communist murderer and Castro henchman Che Guevara.

Mandela’s backers are apparently hoping for short memories or none at all. To even mention the facts, which are out in the open, might open up journalists to the charge that Keller mentions in the Times—that of “red-baiting.”

Keller writes that Mandela’s “Communist affiliation” doesn’t “justify the gleeful red baiting, and it certainly does not diminish a heroic legacy…”

The U.S. media’s treatment of Mandela will go down in history on a par with the Times’ Walter Duranty praising Joseph Stalin and covering up his murder of millions of Ukrainians. The difference is that most of the bodies have not yet piled up in South Africa. And, after all, the victims will be mostly white.

As a footnote to this terrible tragedy, protesters have just knocked down a statue of Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine’s capital and attacked it with hammers. They want their country to turn away from Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

On Tuesday, three American presidents, in addition to Raul Castro and others of his ilk, will pay homage to communist terrorist Nelson Mandela, whose government became a “strategic partner” with the Russian regime.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.