Freedom First Society

It’s a Whole New Con-Con Game

I do not believe the Constitution could survive a modern constitutional convention (con-con). So for many years I have been on the front lines of the anti-convention fight. By 1983 a con-con drive had come within two states of the 34 required to trigger a convention. With a profound sense of urgency and the help of many friends we were able create a little breathing space by getting thirteen of the 32 states to withdraw their resolutions.

Again, in 1995 I faced a fierce con-con effort called the Conference of the States and soundly defeated that scheme in fourteen legislative hearings the same year.

The new onslaught

The year 2015 began with con-con bills looming up in many states. Most of them were promoted on the promise of adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. I did not realize the extensiveness of this new drive until research specialist Andrew Carver uncovered con-con bills pending in 40 states. His first alert warned us that hearings on four con-con bills in Wyoming were imminent. So by the quick action of Freedom First Society friends, led by coordinator Nancy Dunn, a large number of letters to the Senate Rules Committee arrived just in time to kill Wyoming’s HB 75, HB 121, SJ 4, and HJ 4.

As a seasoned con-con warrior, I had confidence in our ability to defeat these bills in legislative hearings just as we had done in years past. But I soon discovered that the 2015 convention drive was not business as usual. We faced a whole new con-con game. This new drive is far better funded, made up of multiple groups with “conservative” credentials, and based on cleverly twisted constitutional phrases calculated to mislead Republican state legislators.

These combined con-con forces had spent much of the preceding year laying the groundwork for their 2015 legislative offensive. They had met frequently with state lawmakers to assure them that the solution to our bloated, oppressive, federal government was in their hands — that through Article V of the Constitution the states were empowered to call a convention to rein in this federal monster. All the states would need to do is apply to Congress for an “amendments convention” for the stated purpose. Upon the application of two-thirds of the states (34), Congress would be required to call the convention.

Well, that’s a pretty compelling promise, especially when backed up by false statements attributed to our Founding Fathers and by the dishonest assertion that a state could limit and control the deliberations and proposals of a convention.

The skilled con-con artists make highly emotional pleas for action against the very real problems of costly, overgrown government. Although they correctly identify a very serious problem, their amendment “solutions” are the supreme non-sequitur. They go after some implied flaws in the Constitution rather than government violations of the Constitution that are at the root of our overgrown government problem. I marvel that so many intelligent state legislators get caught up in such a senseless answer to Washington’s disregard for the Constitution.

Those who oppose the con-con in Republican states face bills endorsed by the Republican legislative leaders, and in many cases by the Governor. Consequently most of the reports we received on this year’s committee hearings indicated that that they were merely showcase exercises rather than honest evaluations of the issue. In Utah, for example, Senate hearings on HJR 7 allowed no more than two opposing witnesses who were allowed no more than five minutes each. In Oklahoma the opposition to HJR 1018 was allowed no more than two witnesses to speak for only 90 seconds each! Obviously, a “do pass” was pre-determined and the hearings were shameful pretenses.

North Dakota Surprise

In the year 2000 I worked personally with Senator Duane Mutch who took the lead in rescinding North Dakota’s 1979 con-con application. So when six new convention-related bills popped up recently, I contacted the senator (now retired) for help in blocking these bills.

We had friends on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but we discovered that the bills had been assigned to the Senate Government and Veterans Affairs Committee (GVA), where we could not expect committee members to be sufficiently informed to stand against these deceitfully promoted measures.

Off to North Dakota

I could hardly sit back and watch another blindfolded committee fall for the lies and false promises of the Convention of States Project and their associates. So I decided personally to attend the Committee’s hearings and testify. It was a good thing I did, because I became the only opposition witness to take the podium.

At the state capital in Bismarck all the big con-con guns were present: Michael Farris of the Convention of States Project; Nick Dranias of the Compact for America; William H. Fruth of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force; Roman Buhler of The Madison Coalition, and other pro con-con big shots.

The first of the six bills before the Senate GVA Committee was HCR 3015, calling for a constitutional convention for amending the Constitution, ostensibly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Virtually all testimony from the con-con men began with the usual emotional rant concerning the horrible situation in Washington, the gargantuan $18 trillion national debt, our perpetually unbalanced federal budget, and warnings of the imminent collapse of the United States. All diatribes of the con-con lobby followed this pattern, some lasting for ten minutes. The North Dakota House and Senate sponsors did likewise.

Falsified purpose of Article V

The local sponsors were followed by Michael Farris who came to the podium with a ridiculous fairy tale about the purpose of Article V. I have re-printed here exactly as given by Farris colleague, Ken Coccinelli:

“Our Founding Fathers gave the states a method of proposing amendments to our Constitution to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Proud Virginian George Mason insisted that one day the federal government would outgrow its bounds, and when that day came, the states would need to have the ability to amend the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government. An Article V Convention of States is the specific recourse he and our Founders put in the Constitution for that purpose.”

Not one word of the above statement is true. It is not simply an outrageous lie, but it is a ludicrous assertion that Mason or anyone else would make such an out of context statement during the Convention of 1787.

My turn at the microphone

When called to the podium, I referred the committee to a news item in which the Nevada Assembly had expunged its 1979 con-con on the basis of fraud. I said, “The Assembly had been promised that a convention could be limited to consider only a Balanced Budget Amendment. Later, when competent legal scholars proved that a convention could not be so limited, the Nevada Assembly realized they had been deceived, so in 1989 they expunged their resolution from the record. The bill before us, HCR 3015, makes the same false promise.”

I added that similar dishonest allusions are in the other five bills to be considered here today. “Since the same principles apply to all six resolutions,” I suggested “that in deference to the Committee’s time, I will oppose the similarities now and not take time to repeat them during each hearing.” The committee chairman, Senator Dick Dever, seemed to appreciate that.

I began by refuting the assertion that George Mason said Article V was created for the purpose of reining in abusive, out-of-control government. “George Mason did not make that statement or anything like it. The Constitution that the Convention had just written already reined in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. That was the whole purpose of the Constitution. It would have been ludicrous for Mason or anyone else to make such a statement.”

The sovereign principle

I also considered it essential to explain to the Committee the sovereign role of a free people, for unless this were understood, I would not be able to refute several other heresies that were written into their HCR 3015 and commended by the preceding witnesses. I explained that constitutional conventions are uniquely American, based on the reality that in a free country the people are inherently sovereign; meaning superior to the governments they create. Article V, for example, empowers the states merely to apply for a convention, not to set rules or limits on it. And once two-thirds apply Congress has only the authority to set the time and place for it. Why is this so? Because the convention is a sovereign assembly, a higher power than whatever it creates. The state is the creature of a convention and cannot dictate to its creator, the people.

In keeping with this principle I explained that delegates at the Convention of 1787 did not really operate a runaway Convention. “Yes, they violated their mandate from Congress, and ignored the rules of their state resolutions; but as proxies of the people they had every right to create a whole new government. This is what conventions have the power to do. And this is the power future conventions will have because they operate under the sovereign authority of the people.”

State resolutions do not dictate the terms of the convention

As an obvious device to allay the very real threat of an out-of-control con-con and its potential to make radical changes in our form of government, the state resolutions are filled with rules and restrictions intended to limit the convention to specified subjects. By recourse to the sovereign authority of a convention, I told the committee: “All of your precautions are worthless and will be tossed out at the convention door. The state legislature does not dictate to its creator (the convention), and that is what you are now attempting to do.”

Following this, I went through several of the amendments Mr. Farris thought a convention should consider and showed how worthless they would be as restrictions on the power of government. I concluded my testimony with, “Mr. Chairman, not one person in favor of a federal convention has identified a single flaw in the Constitution that needs to be corrected.”

The rebuttal of Mr. Farris

Michael Farris loves to cite his credentials, his great knowledge, his experience before the U.S. Supreme Court, and his extensive travels, which he said would include another trip to Idaho next week.

After bolstering his qualifications, Mr. Farris said, “I must compliment Mr. Fotheringham on his scholarship. He is one of few opponents of our project who understands that the 1787 Convention was not a runaway convention. But regarding his knowledge of George Mason, his scholarship does not go far enough. Had Mr. Fotheringham gone online and searched the University of Chicago Law Journal, he would have found the words which he claims George Mason never made.” Farris then quoted a statement by Mason from the Journal; but it was not even close to the statement he had made earlier about Mason’s reasons for the convention route of Article V.

Farris then asserted that the convention route of Article V was for amendments only, and did not authorize the same kind of convention as the Convention of 1787, and that the states did have the power to set its agenda. He added: “The legislatures have a solemn duty to use the Constitution to restore fiscal responsibility and save the country from certain disaster. That is why our Founding Fathers gave us Article V. Now is the time to use it and the states must have the courage to act now while there is anything left of our country.”

In closing, Mr. Farris took a shot at The John Birch Society and said he knew that “Mr. Fotheringham was engaged in some infighting, or had some problems with the organization and I think he is now affiliated with some other similar group.”

I don’t think that attempt to damage my credibility had the ill effect Farris had expected; for my friend, former senator, Duane Mutch, had served many years in the North Dakota Legislature while a member of the Birch Society, and he was highly respected by his colleagues.

Back at the podium

Unlike the showcase hearings reported in other states, North Dakota treated me with fairness and respect. The chairman, Senator Dever, never denied me the opportunity to return to the podium and rebut the assertions of any con-con advocate.

Back at the podium I said: “Mr. Chairman, with all due respects to Mr. Farris, I did indeed search the website of the University of Chicago Law Journal, and the statement attributed to George Mason is not there. What Mr. Farris quoted from the Journal today is not the same false statement he has been circulating in his testimony here and around the country. He cannot produce evidence that George Mason ever made such a statement, or even hinted that Article V was created to rein in some future out of control federal government.”

The multiple bill strategy

Another scheme unique to this year’s con-con game is the multiple bill strategy. Many states hosted several con-con bills that vary slightly, such as demanding a balanced federal budget, imposing term limits, or just limiting federal power. Passage of any one of these would be counted as a convention call and this provided opportunities for the advocates to quell objections to one bill by offering another as an alternative. The six bills considered in North Dakota were examples of the multiple bill strategy.

No committee votes were taken on the day of the hearings, so I left Bismarck feeling good about my defense of the Constitution and my response to the con-con men who had descended on the state in full force. When leaving the statehouse I stopped to shake hands with Mr. Farris. I was not kindly received.

One week later the North Dakota Senate Government and Veterans Affairs Committee voted on all six measures. Four of the bills, HCR 3014, HCR 3015, HCR 3016, and HCR 3017, were formal calls for a convention. Three of these con-con bills (HCR 3014, HCR 3016 and HCR 3017) were defeated. The other bill, (HCR 3015), which was not defeated, was all the con-con men really needed. The other two measures heard on the same day were incidental to the convention applications. HB 1138 was for the adoption of an interstate “compact for a balanced budget,” which passed, and HB 1441 was to provide penalties should the delegates depart from the states’ con-con agenda, which also passed. Had both of these last two measures been defeated, it would have had no effect on the result they were after. They wanted a con-con application under any pretext and, after passage of HCR 3015 in the full Senate, they got their wish.

In my opinion, passage of at least one bill is the cunning purpose of the multiple bill strategy. I regard all six of North Dakota’s Constitution-tampering bills to be merely excuses for plunging the Constitution into a modern convention. I testified against each measure on grounds that the Constitution is not defective and that a modern convention would likely destroy what remains of this wonderful United States.

Off to Boise, Idaho

I remembered what Mr. Farris said about going to Idaho next week, so I headed to Boise. I was determined not to lose anything by default — and just as I suspected — two con-con bills awaited hearings at the Idaho statehouse. I met Sunday evening, March 22, with old friends and learned that one of the bills, HB 67, was scheduled for a hearing the next morning.

This was a bill to establish the selection of delegates to a convention, but not specifically a call for one. So I decided to ask my friends to attend the Monday hearing and testify against the bill. On Monday morning my very capable friends stood boldly against HB 67 and the measure was narrowly defeated in a Senate hearing by a vote of 5 to 4. A fantastic development that led to a victory this year in Idaho.

The other bill, H.R. 18, was the actual con-con bill and a real threat. I was prepared to testify against that bill. However, in view of the exciting defeat of HB 67, I was told that the measure would likely not come up and would therefore die upon adjournment, which was only a week away. And that was what happened. Typically, a bill’s sponsor seeks to avoid outright defeat and instead await a better time and climate.

I did not see the angry Mr. Farris in Idaho. Considering his feeble offensive in Bismarck, it is entirely possible that he remained in ND to counter my charges of fraud. With no one around to dispute his fairy tales, he may have won privately the “do pass” motion on HCR 3015. Mr. Farris seems to have an inside track and high-level influence in the Republican states.

It is not business as usual in this year’s con-con fight. We now face a more corrupt and more sophisticated strategy for plunging the United States into constitutional chaos and for inflicting irreparable damage on the freedom and independence of the United States.

More than ever it is essential to build an informed constituency that will create sufficient pressure on state legislators to overcome the influence of the con-con lobby.

SBAC Concerns Need a Fair and Open Hearing Now

New Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) testing (now being called the ISAT in Idaho — someone thinks we won’t notice the change) has elicited an unprecedented negative response from students, parents, and educators all across the country. Local students have nicknamed it the “SweatBAC.” A friend of mine, who has administered standardized testing to elementary students for the past six years, recently resigned out of frustration with the SBAC.

My friend witnessed the transition between tests and saw a dramatic difference in the student response to the SBAC, as opposed to the ISAT. With the fact-based, multiple choice ISAT, students knew what to do and could move through the test. With the SBAC, many young students cannot even identify the subjective questions buried in the texts, let alone make abstract inferences and answer with an essay containing supportive evidence from the text. Yet, they cannot move to the next question in the 3 ½ hour English testing without providing an answer to the question they can’t identify. These students sit feeling stupid, some of them in tears, as they are required to spend hours completing developmentally inappropriate tasks without support.

My friend could no longer bear to participate in a process which is causing so much emotional pain and psychological damage. She sees no benefit to this subjective test as a measure of knowledge, feels it to be a counterproductive waste of precious time and public money, and is bothered by the lack of information about ‘who’ grades the tests ‘how’ and ‘what’ data collected from testing is being used for. She resigned mid-year.

The difficulties my friend witnessed are NOT “just the result of inadequate preparation.” Early childhood experts all across the country have come forward stating that these tests are developmentally inappropriate. I have a son who suffered a severe brain hemorrhage as a premature infant. Consequently, we have worked closely with the National Association for Child Development, an organization that has a decades-long resume of cutting-edge research in brain development and incredible success helping children and adults learn. These professionals are frustrated by the havoc being wreaked in the minds of many of their clients who are being subjected to what they identify as developmentally inappropriate, and even damaging, educational methods in the name of the Common Core.

State Legislatures Have Withdrawn

What’s more, since its hasty implementation, seven state legislatures have already reconsidered their involvement with the SBAC consortium, have been convinced of its problems, and have withdrawn their participation.

Carol Burris, New York State Outstanding Educator in 2010 and New York State High School Principle of the Year in 2013, thoroughly reviewed the Common Core and identified 5 reasons she believes it is disastrous for education. Included among these — Common Core standards contradict what we know about how young children learn, including decades of research on early reading development; and Common Core tests are unreasonably difficult and will result in unfair consequences to children.

Here in Idaho, the Madison School District superintendent has questioned the validity and costs of the SBAC. He found another option for his school district which had a much more solid research basis, more valid results, and will save his district approximately $10,000 over the cost of administering the SBAC. He has announced that his students will not be taking the SBAC test.

Top-down Pressure to Comply

But the top-down pressure to comply with the educational monopoly granted to this Common Core aligned testing consortium is staggering. Parents are being told that they have no legal authority to withdraw their child from taking this test. Districts are required to administer this test to 95% of their students, regardless of their circumstances or special needs, or risk “losing stars” and federal money. The SBAC has become a graduation requirement. Those seeking an alternative route to graduation will find that even the GED test has been re-written by the same consortium that compiled the SBAC.

As these SBAC tests have been implemented the pass rate has plummeted by as much as 80% in some states. Yet, instead of re-examining the tests, the steam-roller pressure to enthrone them continues. Even colleges and universities are under top-down pressure from the federal government to align their college admission standards to federal standards for financial aid, eliminating other traditionally-accepted admissions options and making these tests mandatory for admission to higher education as well. This big-fisted monopoly over education at all levels makes past monopolies look like a game of croquet as opposed to rugby. This unprecedented top-down pressure is a gigantic, flashing, red indicator that these are NOT parent-led, voluntary changes.

That so many have caved to this top-down coercion without protest is disappointing; but the way that our state leaders have responded to the concerns being raised is completely unacceptable. When Idahoans introduced bills requiring debate and discussion regarding the SBAC, state leaders have killed these bills in committee, refusing to allow them to even come to the floor. The plug-your-ears-and-turn-your-back response of these state leaders to our substantial, valid concerns is inexcusable. With only a short time left in the legislative session, It is high time that state representatives and all concerned citizens use their influence to demand that bills like SB 1070 and SCR 106 are given a fair and open hearing.

Granting such monopoly power to any consortium is wrong. Granting it to a consortium that straps us with developmentally inappropriate, unsound educational practices is a betrayal of the public trust.

The Common Core Cabal Strikes Again

The Common Core Cabal has struck again, this time to the tune of 61 million Idaho tax-payer dollars, as was reported on the front page of the Morning News, March 25, 2015. This money was reportedly “wasted” on a student data tracking system which, incidentally, Idaho agreed to implement as a part of Governor Otter’s federal “Race to the Top” application. Idaho didn’t win the Race to the Top, but we did get a bill for a 61 million dollar Student Data Tracking System that didn’t really work.

The article conveniently blames this incredible waste, which comes at a time when many Idaho schools are struggling just to meet basic expenses, on the Luna administration, which is long gone. It then quotes Senator Tim Corder reassuring us that our new state superintendent, Sherri Ybarra, can count and spell (as if Tom Luna couldn’t) and so we can all feel secure that this fiasco will not be repeated. It appears, then, that this 61 million dollars is just water under the bridge.

There are a lot of angles to this story. I could write a whole book documenting concerns related to the Student Data Tracking System, which is intended to gather personally identifiable data on every student from pre-school up through college and career. These concerns include: the privacy issues, the lack of parental access and oversight, the significant likelihood that it will be a financially lucrative gold-mine for corrupt government cronies, etc. There are many reasons to oppose the creation of this system in the first place.

Ignoring the Truly Significant

However, the thing that struck me about this story was the part that was minimized and NOT shared. The article very briefly mentions that, in addition to poor administrative decisions, the system we paid for was never designed to serve as a statewide system. It also briefly mentions that it was purchased from a company called Schoolnet, a New York company owned by British-based publishing giant Pearson.

Why is this significant? Pearson has partnered with the Gates Foundation as one of the primary corporate funders and promoters of Common Core reforms. I know — some will falsely claim that the student data tracking system has nothing to do with the Common Core standards. But the fact is that the authors of the standards — those who own the copyright — have published articles on their own web-site outlining a five step plan for education reform. These reforms include the adoption of the Common Core standards AND the implementation of a national student data tracking system as interlocked parts of a five-step reform package. Other steps include teacher training reforms, curriculum alignment, and new school accountability measures (testing, etc.).

Pearson and the Gates Foundation have been behind the Common Core wave from the start. They have learned to play corporate cronyism to the hilt and they are riding the American tax-payer hard, financially benefiting from almost every aspect of the five-step education reforms they are pushing. Pearson, the largest educational publisher and on-line book company in the world (how about some new Common Core aligned curriculum in every classroom?), also launched the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) consortium which is writing new Common Core testing (more money) and sells software for districts to use (and more $) in administering tests, and provides internet bandwidth (still more $). They also provide conferences and training to help states roll out Common Core (more profit). And they apparently sell Student Data Tracking Systems with price tags in the tens of millions.

News reports of Pearson rolling out inadequate products and receiving slaps on the hand for illegal corporate/non-profit activities are not hard to find. For example, in December of 2013, the Washington Post reported that Pearson had agreed to pay a 7.7 million dollar settlement after the New York Attorney General found them guilty of using their non-profit foundation to generate tens of millions of dollars for their corporate arm. Pearson’s non-profit foundation was used to develop products and curriculum aligned to new standards, all tax-exempt. These products were then being sold — for profit.

What’s more, their tax-exempt foundation was flying public officials to extravagant international locations for conferences where Pearson’s corporate employees would meet with them and assess the needs of the states the public officials represented — so that they could sell them Pearson products. When Pearson was called on the carpet for their illegal activities (bribery and extortion) they claimed ignorance and paid a measly settlement into a fund to train teachers (hardly a loss on their part).

When one understands the scope and nature of the corrupt cronyism which is the impetus and core of current education reforms, it seems ludicrous that this most recent 61 million dollar loss of tax-payer dollars is being chalked up to one ignorant public official who is nowhere around. Meanwhile the current administration is giving Pearson a free pass and continuing it’s love affair with Common Core reforms.

Surely the data tracking software was purchased with the understanding that it would perform as a statewide data collection system. Clearly it was not what it was marketed to be. Now, our public officials, evidently hesitant to challenge the corrupt system they have participated in, are mildly walking away.

It’s time to get educated about education reforms. Until the people, in general, become aware of and unwilling to tolerate the corporate/federal cabal that now has public education by the throat, we will continue to pay through the nose — not just in dollars, but in the quality and content of our education, and, ultimately, in the loss of our own personal liberty and the ability to have local control over the education of our own children.

Also by Julianne Young: SBAC Concerns Need a Fair and Open Hearing Now

Congress Caves on Amnesty

On February 27, the Senate passed a “clean” version of H.R. 240, the FY 2015 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The original House version included a provision denying any funding to implement President Obama’s executive orders regarding “temporary” “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. On March 3, the GOP-led House also caved in and approved the Senate version. The President signed the measure the following day.

Please see our analyses of both the House and Senate votes:

• House GOP analysis

• Senate GOP analysis

The Danger of a Convention of States

This article refutes the most common claims of an intense drive to stampede the public and state legislators into calling for a dangerous second constitutional convention (con-con) under the pretense of solving the very real problem of an out-of-control federal government.

The states cannot limit a con-con

The latest fad in con-con circles is the notion that Article V establishes a special breed of single-issue convention that empowers the states to limit the convention to a pre-set agenda. Con-con promoter Michael Farris asserts that an Article V convention is limited to consideration of single amendments and cannot, therefore, stray from its call and make wholesale changes in the Constitution.

Somewhere in his scholarship Mr. Farris has missed the point. In a free society the people are the supreme sovereign authority, and the power of a constitutional convention flows directly from the people. That is the power by which the states were created when freed from Great Britain. That is also the power that created the United States Constitution in 1787. Mr. Farris has it all backward; he has the creature (the states) dictating to their creator (the convention of the people).

When the people meet in convention they are under no obligation to abide by the terms of the state resolutions. That is why Article V establishes no procedures, other than to apply. Once two-thirds apply, Congress shall call a convention, and once the convention convenes, it is under the highest sovereign authority of a free country: the people. At that point the rules, procedures, and agenda are set by the convention. Neither Congress nor the state legislatures have any authority or control over a convention once it is called to order.

The idea that an Article V convention is something different from the Convention of 1787 is refuted by the official record. During the original Convention, when deputy Roger Sherman was making some incidental language changes in Article V, the record states:

Mr. Sherman moved to strike out of Article V, after “legislatures” the words “of three fourths” and so after the word “Conventions” leaving future Conventions to act in this matter, like the present Convention according to circumstances .1

In other words, they expected future conventions to be just like the present Convention which had power to create, alter, or abolish governments. Nowhere in the Records of the Federal Convention, or in the Federalist Papers, do the Framers imply that an Article V convention is anything other than the type of convention that was then underway in Philadelphia. Conventions are conventions whether intended for single amendments or wholesale changes.

A “limited constitutional convention” is an oxymoron.

Unlimited Power

The right of free citizens to amend or alter their form of government exists inherently with or without Article V. During the 1787 Convention James Madison stated that:

“The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased. It was a principle in the bills of rights that the first principles [the power of the people] might be resorted to.” 2

In 1967, Senator Sam Ervin was so intrigued by Article V that he thoroughly researched the subject and came to the conclusion that:

“… as We the People are the true de jure sovereign of these states, We the People cannot be held by anyone to any single issue once we convene our convention. If we so choose, the entire Constitution could be rewritten.”3

The Falsified Purpose of Article V

The con-con men have falsified the meaning and purpose of Article V. Here in bold type is a direct quotation from con-con collaborator, Ken Cuccinelli, who asserted that:

“Our Founding Fathers gave the states a method of proposing amendments to our Constitution to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Proud Virginian George Mason insisted that one day the federal government would outgrow its bounds, and when that day came, the states would need to have the ability to amend the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government. An Article V Convention of States is the specific recourse he and our Founders put in the Constitution for that purpose.” 4

Every word of the above statement is false. Our Founding Fathers did not create Article V “to rein in the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” The Constitution they had just written already did that. That was the reason for drafting the Constitution in the first place.

Moreover, “Proud Virginian George Mason” never said “one day the federal government would outgrow its bounds, and when that day came, the states would need to have the ability to amend the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government.” This is an outlandish lie. It cannot be found in the Records of the Federal Convention, or in any of the official founding documents. This fabrication is inconsistent with the main purpose of Article V, which Mr. Mason clearly explained in the official record:

“Col. [George] Mason urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial 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.” 5

James Madison also explained the purpose of Article V:

“That useful alterations will be suggested by experience could not but be foreseen. It was requisite therefore that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the Convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable: and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and state governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side or on the other.” 6

The Illegal “Assembly of State Legislatures”

Without the slightest concept of the principles of America’s convention system, or of the sovereign source of government-making, a private group of state legislators has undertaken the task of making the rules for a future con-con. Their deliberations are a sad illustration of the failure of American education. Under the name, Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL), they purport to emulate the 1786 Annapolis meeting in which the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation were discussed and a date set for revising them.

The ASL resolution asserts that the state legislatures have “relinquished power to the national government that has upset the balance originally provided by the Founders in our federalist system….” That is not exactly what has happened. The states have not relinquished power. The federal government has usurped power in violation of its constitutional limits. The imbalance of power stems from federal encroachment, not from any abrogation of power by the states, and certainly not as a result of any structural defects. The purpose and power of a constitutional convention is to amend or rewrite the Constitution. It is obviously impossible to amend the Constitution to restore a provision that was never taken out of it. The delegated federal powers and the residual state powers, as established in the Constitution, remain in place exactly as they were in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was added.

Absent any concept of constitution-making principles, the men and women at the ASL are making rules that will be tossed out at the con-con door. We can only assume that the ASL’s rule-making charade is a device for deceiving state legislators, assuring them that they can apply with confidence for a structured con-con.

One of our nation’s top legal scholars, Charles L. Black, of Yale University Law School, pointed out that during our nation’s first 100 years all convention applications were for a general convention. This means that during the lifetime of our founders, and long thereafter, all state legislators had a clear understanding of the autonomy of the convention itself. Mr. Black believes that any state application that attempts to limit a convention to a specific topic is null and void. 7 The 1786 Annapolis meeting — on which the ASL hangs its hat — did not create the rules or procedures for the Philadelphia Convention. This was all done on May 25, 1787 after George Washington called the Convention to order.

State legislators who are invited into the ASL should challenge its premises and reject the bogus authority of a private organization to establish rules for a federal convention.

Even the Proposed Amendments are Phony

The con-con men, who profess so much love for the Constitution, never say they think the document is flawed, or that the framers goofed, or that the Constitution has outlived its warranty. Rather, they present a list of problems that they claim the Constitution has failed to address and which they insist can be remedied only by means of a new convention. Here are several amendments that Mr. Farris, founder of the Convention of States Project, thinks would be up for discussion in a forthcoming convention:

Balanced Budget Amendment
A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause
A redefinition of the Commerce Clause
A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
Limitation on using Executive Orders to enact laws
Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court

A Balanced Budget Amendment

The con-con men blame the Constitution for the absence of a balanced budget provision; however, adherence to the Constitution is the original balanced budget mechanism. Obedience to the Constitution would quickly restore fiscal sanity and limited government.

Con-con advocates never identify the cause of our budget woes, such as the unconstitutional agencies that sap $billions out of the Treasury. If we are really serious about budget deficits, why not abolish everything for which there is no constitutional authority?

A simple majority in Congress could, for example, repeal the legislation that created the Department of Energy, the Environment Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and Foreign Aid, and we would instantly have a $200 billion surplus! It is nonsense to claim the Constitution needs a budget amendment when getting our nation back under the Constitution is the obvious remedy.

Term Limits for Congress

On this issue8 Alexander Hamilton said: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection.”9 The Constitution does not establish term limits for the simple reason that the Continental Congress had already had term limits and they did not work. Why? Because term limits gave the country a perpetual lame duck Congress. Under term limits a politician knew he would never have to stand for re-election; consequently, if the man was prone to corruption, he got his corruption over with in a hurry.

During the 1787 Convention, Gouverneur Morris objected to a proposed term limits clause by pointing out that, “The ineligibility proposed by the clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him ‘make hay while the sun shines.’” 10

Deputy Roger Sherman added that, “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also give permanency to the government by preserving that good behavior because it ensures their re-election…. In Connecticut we have existed 132 years under an annual government, and as long as a man behaves himself well, he is never turned out of office.”11

The con-con promoters study the same documents we study; therefore, we know that they know that term limits is a phony issue. They cling to the term limits ruse apparently because the idea has appeal and looks “plausible at first sight.”

The greatest term limit device ever invented is the ballot box.

Term Limits for Justices of the Supreme Court

The Constitution already has a term limit law for the judiciary. It is called impeachment. The fact that judges are rarely impeached when they should be impeached is no fault of the Constitution.

Most social problems come through cases that arrive at the Supreme Court on appeal, such as abortion and school prayer. Getting the High Court out of these sensitive moral issues does not require an amendment. It is clearly within the power of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.12 And with respect to the abusive federal district courts, these are all the creation of Congress and can be controlled, changed, or abolished by the same simple majority by which they were created.

Redefining the Welfare Clause

It is hard to believe that Mr. Farris and his con-con collaborators never looked in an eighteenth century dictionary to find out what the framers meant by “welfare.” The 1787 definition is: happiness, success, prosperity.13 The word means to fare well. The General Welfare Clause has nothing to do with government charity or handouts. The Preamble simply identifies what “We the people” have done to “promote the general happiness, success, and prosperity, and secure the blessings of liberty….” The Constitution is perfectly perfect in this respect. The only “redefining” needed for this clause is a little less socialism in the classroom and a little more integrity in Congress.

Redefining the Commerce Clause

This clause was not misunderstood during the lifetimes of the Framers. Its purpose was well-known and repeatedly defined. It was also explained in the Federalist Papers, essays no. 22 and 44. The states had opposed the taxation of goods passing through their borders, and the monopolization of certain foreign imports. Expediting the flow of commerce was a high priority of the Convention, and every delegate understood its importance and exact purpose. It is no fault of the Constitution that the Commerce Clause is flagrantly abused, nor does it make sense to call a convention to clarify it. Every unconstitutional activity assumed under the pretext of the Commerce Clause can be overturned by a simple majority in Congress. No need to tamper with the Constitution.

Redefining the Treaty Clause

Presumably Michael Farris is referring to Article VI in which “… all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” He apparently thinks this means international treaties are superior to United States domestic law and sees this as a reason to amend Article VI. If Professor Farris taught his students that the Supremacy Clause was a defect in the Constitution, we feel sorry for the students and their misinformed teacher.

Under the Articles of Confederation treaties that were made by the individual states often encroached upon the federal authority or were in conflict with treaties made or wanted by the Confederation Congress.14 Federalizing the treaty power was, therefore, a high priority of the 1787 Convention in matters of trade, security, and diplomacy.15 Accordingly, the Constitution was written to make United States treaties the only valid treaties and to nullify all existing state-made treaties, regardless of any provision in the state constitutions or opinion of the state judges. Article VI makes federal treaties supreme over state-made treaties and conflicting state laws. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution and must in fact be made “in pursuance thereof” (Article VI, Paragraph 2). The Treaty Clause needs only to be understood and properly taught. No amendment is needed.

Limitations on Executive Orders

Since Article I, Section 1, clause 1 of the Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress, how could anyone think the President could legally make any laws under any title or pretext? Nothing in the Constitution authorizes “Executive Orders” or any other lawmaking excuse for the president. The fact that Congress quivers when the president violates his proper role does not mean anything is wrong with the Constitution. It simply means we should remember the president’s audacity, and the need for a little backbone in Congress, when we cast our votes in the next election. The Constitution cannot be amended to eliminate that which it does not allow.

Hey, this leaves the con-con men without one valid reason to mess with the Constitution! By any assessment, the above list of amendments for which the con-con men demand a second convention shows the utter absurdity (or worse) of their big, expensive, nationwide con-con campaign.

Not one of their proposed amendments could rein in an out of control federal government!

State legislators will be wise to examine these phony amendments, and then look into the manner by which such baseless proposals made their way into legislative language. They are worse than stupid because they appear as benign resolutions, but bring with them the potential of serious consequences for our country.

The Founding Fathers’ Refused to Call a Second Convention

The Framers faced numerous objections during the ratification process. The anti-federalists wanted, among other things, a Bill of Rights, a less powerful Senate, and a Congress with power to veto Supreme Court opinions. In order to add these and other features to the Constitution the ratifying conventions had urged the framers to call a second convention. In reply to that idea Alexander Hamilton said:

The reasons assigned in an excellent little pamphlet lately published in this city [New York] are unanswerable to show the utter improbability of assembling a new convention under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded. 16

Deputy Charles Pinkney of South Carolina expressed similar concerns:

Nothing but confusion and contrariety could spring from the experiment. The states will never agree in their plans, and the deputies to a second convention coming together under the discordant impressions of their constituents, will never agree. Conventions are serious things and ought not to be repeated. 17 [Emphasis ours.]

James Madison vehemently opposed calling an Article V convention. In a letter to a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, George Lee Turberville, Madison wrote:

Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second…. 18

Does anyone believe Madison, Hamilton, or any of the Framers would see our day as a favorable time to call a convention? Or should we too “tremble for the result of a second?”

That Shaky Safety Valve

The con-con men are quick to assure state legislators that nothing can possibly go wrong because anything proposed in a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. They ask:

Would 38 states ratify any bad amendments?

They already did! 19

They ratified the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Amendments, all of which shifted power to the central government at the expense of the states. All of these bad amendments were promoted by the White House and the press. We may be assured that our pernicious mass media could never pass up such a golden opportunity to promote radical social change.

The Convention of 1787 got around its ratification problem by changing the number from thirteen states to nine. If a new con-con proposes anything doubtful, they too could change the ratification rule from 38 states to 26 — or perhaps ratification by the governors, or by sanction of the President. One thing is certain: If the con-con produces harmful or unwanted changes, the opposing states will never have a chance to veto it.

They Tricked Us In 1933

When the time came to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment (prohibition), Congress and the liquor lobby knew that the southern Bible-belt states, and a few of the western states, would never ratify it. They were correct. The repeal amendment20 would never have been ratified if sent in the normal way to the state legislatures. How did they get around this? They resorted to the option of ratification by public conventions. In Utah, for example, they held a statewide vote on the issue. Then from this tally, 27 voters who favored repeal were selected for the ratifying convention and unanimously approved repeal. Amazing! This trickery cannot be over-emphasized, for clearly 97 percent of Utah’s citizens opposed the amendment, and yet the non-drinking Mormon state “ratified” the Twenty-first Amendment to repeal prohibition.

Beware. If an unwanted amendment or corruption of the Constitution came out of a second convention, does anyone believe the opposing state legislatures would ever see it? There is no way to prevent a modern convention from changing the ratification process, or even skipping it entirely. There is no security in the assurance that “38 states” will keep harmful alterations out of our Constitution in a modern constitutional convention.

When it’s all said and done, the big push for a con-con is fluff, falsehood, and bluster.

The most ingenious legal scholar is incapable of writing an amendment that grants more freedom than is guaranteed by a fully enforced U.S. Constitution.

Political and economic abuse will end — and the Constitution will be safe — when the American people get their brains and their bodies back to the ballot box.

Notes

1. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Vol. II, p. 630.
2. Farrand, Vol. II, p. 476.
3. Quoted in The Los Angeles Times, January 15, 1992, p. B7.
4. From a letter written by Mr. Cuccinelli addressed to voters in the state of Virginia.
5. Farrand, Vol. I, p. 202.
6. The Federalist no. 43.
7. Stated by Mr. Black in testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, September 29, 1979.
8. The founding documents define term limits as “ineligibility for reappointment.”
9. The Federalist no. 72.
10. Farrand, Vol. II, p. 33.
11. Farrand, Vol. I, p. 423.
12. U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2.
13. Definition of “welfare” found in Perry’s Royal Standard English Dictionary, Worcester, MA, 1788.
14. Farrand, Vol. I, p. 164.
15. Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of Union, America, Vol. 3, p. 47.
16. The Federalist no. 85.
17. Farrand, Vol. II, p. 632.
18. Rutland, R. ed. The Papers of James Madison, Vol. II, University of Virginia Press (1977), p. 330.
19. At that time three-fourths was 36 states.
20. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment.

Monthly Action Report Excerpts re Common Core

October 2014 Action Report

“Getting to the Core of Common Core”

“The longitudinal student data tracking systems which are currently being put in place in states all across the country will compile personally identifiable data on every student. That means that a student’s test results, academic and disciplinary records, and even personal information about students’ personal and family life are being plugged into a database that will follow them their entire lives.” — Julianne Young in a new DVD

Idaho Chapter Leader Mrs. Julianne Young has researched and developed a blockbuster new presentation on a topic dear to her heart — education. Julianne graduated from Idaho State University with a bachelor’s degree in education. For this latest presentation, she had done masterful work in researching and organizing what those concerned about Common Core should really be looking at.

Julianne supplies a unique and vital perspective missing from the national “debate.” In particular, she points out that Common Core is just one recent manifestation of a much bigger agenda that has plagued education for decades. And she insists that the real threat driving Common Core cannot be defeated without addressing the bigger picture.

So impressed were we with Julianne’s message that we invited her to come to Colorado Springs and allow us to make a DVD of her presentation. A DVD would enable all members to spread her message as part of a campaign opportunity.

For starters, we urge members to familiarize themselves with the presentation. Note: The DVD is provided as a bonus to anyone who contributes to our Fall financial appeal.

Once members are familiar with Julianne’s message they will likely be eager to share her presentation with others. That will mean ordering additional copies — for sale at group meetings or for lending. Excellent prospects for either might include: 1) “conservative” members of local school boards; 2) local citizens who have expressed concern over Common Core; 3) home-schooling parents; and 4) parents who have children in government schools. Standard FFS DVD quantity pricing applies (see the Tools & Products page on our website).

The nationwide momentum behind Common Core, supported by billions in federal money, has properly alarmed many Americans, even though they see only a small part of the picture. Exposing the Core of Common Core, by hosting presentations and organizing outreach, is an excellent project for local chapters.

Action Summary: View and share the “Getting to the Core of Common Core” DVD (available for purchase and as a bonus for responding to the Fall financial appeal).

November 2014 Action Report

Common Core “Standards”

“The nationwide momentum behind Common Core, supported by billions in federal money, has properly alarmed many Americans, even though they see only a small part of the picture.” — October Action Report

Members who contributed to the Fall financial appeal received Freedom First Society’s new Getting to the Core of Common Core DVD as a special “thank you” bonus. This outstanding presentation by Idaho Chapter Leader Julianne Young provides vital perspective missing from the “conservative debate.”

A National Power Grab

“Conservative” leadership addressing Common Core generally adopts the narrow, reactive focus Julianne Young warns against, as though Common Core were an isolated problem. For example, an April 2013 National Review online report stated:

“The federal government has spent billions to move Common Core forward, and it has put billions more on the line. Unfortunately, parents, teachers, tea-party activists, and governors have every reason to believe Common Core represents major, unprecedented federal intervention into education.” [Emphasis added.]

However, as Julianne points out, Common Core is not unprecedented federal intervention but merely another major step in a planned power grab spanning most of a century.

Not surprisingly, a brief search of the Internet turns up dozens of state organizations that have been formed to fight Common Core. Unfortunately, experience shows that single-issue organizations are generally ineffective, because they decide to ignore the big picture of what they are up against.

In this climate, aggressive member action can make a unique and incisive contribution. Chapters should be making plans to use this new wake-up tool aggressively. We have recommended ordering additional copies — for sale at group meetings or for lending. As we suggested last month:

“Excellent prospects for either might include: 1) “conservative” members of local school boards; 2) local citizens who have expressed concern over Common Core; 3) home-schooling parents; and 4) parents who have children in government schools.”

We urge Chapters and members to adopt a dual strategy with the DVD: 1) Use it to create interest in Freedom First Society among good prospects for membership; and 2) share it with local opinion leaders who are confronting Common Core.

Our standard DVD prices apply: Individual copies are $7 each, 3 to 9 copies $5 each, 10 or more copies $3 each, plus a flat $3 shipping and handling per order, regardless of quantity. Note: A generic flyer for promoting presentations comes with each order.

January 2015 Action Report

The Core of Common Core

“The Common Core standards were developed in 2009 and released in 2010. Within a matter of months, they had been endorsed by 45 states and the District of Columbia….

“Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice chaired a commission for the Council on Foreign Relations, which concluded that the Common Core standards were needed to protect national security….

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the standards, saying they were necessary to prepare workers for the global marketplace. The [Establishment’s] Business Roundtable stated that its #1 priority is the full adoption and implementation of the Common Core standards.” — Diane Ravitch, “education historian,” in a speech to the Modern Language Association on January 11, published in the Washington Post, 1-18-14

In our November Action Report, we urged Chapters and members to adopt a dual strategy with the “Getting to the Core of Common Core” DVD: 1) Use it to create interest in Freedom First Society among good prospects for membership; and 2) share it with local opinion leaders who are confronting Common Core.

Note: A generic flyer for promoting presentations comes with each DVD order.

February 2015 Action Report

The Core of Common Core

As The President Makers amply demonstrates, anyone who seriously threatens the Insider agenda will not gain the presidency anytime soon. Lawmakers who play the presidential race game are helping to perpetuate the Great American Myth — the deception that Americans can make real change by electing the candidate for president who makes the most sense on the campaign trail.

Accordingly, we are disappointed that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has made a bid for the presidency. Many conservatives will undoubtedly find comfort in Paul’s opposition to Common Core. In a swing through New Hampshire (Reuters, 1-14-14), Paul argued that it would be better for local schools to develop their own standards, thus fostering innovation: “If you have a national curriculum and rules, you’ll never get to these new ideas.”

The Reuters report further noted:

“Paul’s position against Common Core distinguishes him from former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Republican who has come closest to officially declaring his presidential candidacy and who has expressed support for the standards…..

“Paul added that if elected, he would eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, a sentiment that drew applause from the audience.”

Not mentioned are the forces that quietly persuaded so many states to adopt Common Core. Allowing them to remain hidden from public scrutiny will not defeat their agenda.

Fortunately, our Idaho Chapter Leader Julianne Young has provided a great service by exposing those forces with her masterful Getting to the Core of Common Core presentation (available on DVD from Freedom First Society). Julianne shows that Common Core is not an isolated “mistake” of flawed planning, as most politicians would prefer to treat it. Rather, Common Core is just one part of a long-term collectivist battle to control the education of America’s youth, as a foundation for a subservient socialist society.

While it is refreshing to hear a senator advocate the elimination of the unconstitutional U.S. Department of Education, we note that “conservative” presidential candidate Ronald Reagan did so decades earlier. Yet, as president, his administration never even entertained such a step.

The Department of Education is so well entrenched and so important an accomplishment for the Insiders that it will not be reversed simply by a political position statement. The American people will first need to understand the subversive danger the Department truly represents.

Ideological “Weeds” Thrive Across the Land

While recently rereading a classical literary piece from a century ago, I realized anew how each person is a microcosm of the demographic group or society to which he or she belongs. Truly, no man is an island, and we all bring to our society characteristics, traits, and attributes which contribute to the whole. When we analyze some of the notable events from the past year, we can’t help but realize how our individual contributions either ameliorate, or vitiate, the cumulative character of our society.

The book, As a Man Thinketh, by the English moralist James Allen, abounds in insightful truisms and verities. The following is but one of many such gems. “A man’s mind may be likened to a garden, which may be intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether cultivated or neglected, it must, and will, bring forth. If no useful seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless weed seeds will fall therein, and will continue to produce their kind.”

As much idiocy as we observed playing out on the public stage this past year, it’s obvious that there are too many minds not being planted or cultivated with ennobling or productive seeds. And, according to Allen, the evidence is manifest behaviorally. Not unlike the timeless wisdom of Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Case in point, the “Hands up, don’t shoot,” social phenomenon that was spawned, and perpetuated, based on fictitious accounts of the tragic shooting of a young man in Ferguson, MO. The fact that such a fallacious mantra would gain such traction among the race-baiters, celebrities, misinformed, and even professional athletes, does not portend well for our culture. But why bother with facts and evidence, when a fabricated story can be so superbly spun for the sake of advancing an ideological narrative, or inciting riots and precipitating violence? This provides evidentiary validation of Allen’s thesis, that “an abundance of useless weed seeds” can bear sway in the absence of “useful,” and I might add, informed and fact-based “seeds.”

On a par with that evidentiary validation, but much more consequential in its long-term implications, is the request by law students at Columbia, Harvard, and other law schools, to postpone their final exams. They felt they had been “traumatized” due to their protests of the Ferguson and New York grand jury decisions to not charge policemen for perceived wrongful deaths. Would anyone even consider hiring an attorney who felt “traumatized” because they protested too strenuously, and felt themselves to be incapable of taking tests as a result? Aphorisms aplenty seem to apply in such an instance, primary of which is simply to “grow up.”

As we celebrated the 50^th anniversary of the Great Society “war on poverty,” the nation’s redistribution of over $22 trillion is one of those governmental policies that evokes great emotion yet, as inefficacious as it has been, clearly is bourn of ideological “weeds.” Our poverty rate is about the same today as it was fifty years ago, which means our wealth redistribution has accomplished nothing, and has not addressed the underlying societal issues which are causal to poverty.

Another example is regrettably provided by our president, who, after claiming that all of his policies were on the midterm electoral ballot, was thoroughly trounced as voters rejected his legislative and ideological pawns who supported his policies. Yet, in the aftermath of such a drubbing, became increasingly pertinacious, clinging to his rejected ideology, and claimed to hear what those who didn’t vote had to say. The mainstream media should have had a heyday with such vapidity, yet, as has been their wont over the past six years, gave the president a pass on his vacuity.

Equally vacuous was the president’s reference to the Biblical story of Mary and Joseph in an amnesty speech delivered last month. He may want to break down and actually read the Bible, if he’s going to “quote” from it. Mary and Joseph were not illegal aliens, and, contrary to his other “quote” from the Bible in the same speech, the Good Book says nothing about “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” It’s bad enough when our fellow countrymen fill their ignorant voids with uninformed “weeds,” but when our president does it, and he gets away with it, it does not bode well for our media or our society.

That such ignorance, bourn of ideological “weeds,” can flourish in our “enlightened” culture is indeed discomfiting. It’s enough to make one wonder if “The Walking Dead” TV series is more reflective of our collective consciousness, rather than simply apocalyptic TV fiction.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

House Votes to Prevent Executive Overreach

On December 4, 2014, the lame duck House of Representatives passed H.R. 5759, Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014.

The House measure was a response to President Obama’s November 20th televised address in which he announced that he would act unilaterally to “fix” America’s “broken immigration system” — because Congress hadn’t done so.

Of course, this GOP attempt to nullify the president’s outrageous usurpation of the legislative function was destined to go nowhere, and everybody knew it. But, as with so many roll calls, the primary purpose was to allow GOP House members to go on record as objecting to the president’s action.

Accordingly, we did not score the House GOP for their easy posturing “yea” votes, but we give credit to the three Democrats who broke with their party’s leadership and stood for the Constitution.

However, America’s immigration problem is serious, and the partisan posturing over the president’s executive orders obscures a much more important reality — the Establishment’s decades-old support for the open borders movement.

Please see our analysis of House Roll Call 550.

Leadership Meeting Remarks

At an October 2014 leadership meeting, Freedom First Society President, G. Vance Smith discussed three tactics/strategies that the Insiders (Conspiracy) regularly employ to move forward their objective of total socialist control over nations and the world. Here are the three followed by a paragraph summary of Mr. Smith’s remarks for each.

“Create the appearance of popular support.”
“Break the will to resist.”
“Patient gradualism.”

Create the appearance of popular support

Since the Insiders control almost all aspects of the national media and educational institutions, it is fairly easy for them to promote their agenda by creating the appearance of strong demand for that agenda. With this near monopoly they are able to convince people that the gradual slide of events leftward is inevitable and that it cannot be stopped. They thus create the impression that same-sex marriage, abortion, legalization of marijuana and street drugs, and general moral decline is what people and society want, and that it cannot be stopped. Of course, this simply isn’t true, but the Insider objective is to convince people that they are out-of-step and out-of-touch with reality if they do not comply.

Break the will to resist

Insider controlled neo-conservative and accepted “conservative” voices (Pied Pipers), allowed to express their views and opinions on Insider owned and controlled media outlets — Fox Cable, etc., flood good people with horrible “ain’t it awfuls” every day. Problems, problems, and never solutions to those problems. It is all so overwhelming that the viewer and listener are convinced there is simply no hope. Thus, completely neutralized, they give up before they even consider organizing to fight back. In this climate, along come the tangential “ain’t it awfuls” with their false solutions. Don Fotheringham discusses many of these very effectively in his booklet Tangents and Traps. Again, as these tangents are presented — tax-rebellion, con-con calls, Posse Comitatus, chem-trails, militia movements, etc., etc., they not only work to demoralize and thwart genuine and organized resistance, but they work to paint all genuine patriots as nut-cases like the purveyors of these views. These are very clever and effective tools that the Insiders use to their benefit.

Patient Gradualism

The Insiders know that they personally will prosper by serving a Satanic Conspiracy in their lifetimes whether or not the objectives are completed, as long as the specific Insider proves his dedication to moving those objectives forward. Patriots, on the other hand, are looking for the quick fix — the tangential shootout tomorrow at high noon at the “OK Corral.” So their “Patient Gradualism” benefits the Insiders in two ways — the longevity of their programs adds to the discouragement of those who claim “it is just too late” and it supports the “Roman candle” antics of those promoting “Quick-fix” solutions.

Conclusion

All three of the above lead us to know and better understand that there are true solutions. The patriots need to organize and to work with linked arms to accomplish specific concerted action objectives that can expose and defeat the Conspiracy. It is hard work. It takes sacrifice, commitment over the long haul, perseverance, determination, and dedication.

Yes, the same qualities and characteristics our Founding Fathers and revolutionary soldiers epitomized as they sacrificed all to ensure freedom for future generations. It is hard, but it can be done. Freedom is worth every bit of what we can invest in it while there is still time. We need to keep our collective eyes on the ball — avoid tangents and traps — organize for victory, and do all that we can to build Freedom First Society and work to preserve freedom.

Here’s the Illogic of New Definition of Marriage

“Destroy the family and you destroy a nation” has been an oft-repeated aphorism of unverified origin that rings true from a common sense perspective. The family unit, after all, is the building block of all cultures and societies. And just as the law of unintended consequences manifests itself often glaringly when dealing with issues of a political nature, so likewise the unintended consequences of redefining marriage will likewise prove to be pejorative.

The proliferation of “same-sex marriage” is based, both judicially and from a political correctness standpoint, on two major fallacious premises. The first is that marrying whoever or whatever one wants is somehow a “right,” and the second is that marriage can be whatever we choose it to be.

Marriage to whomever or whatever one chooses to be is not a codified “right.” Even if it could somehow be so extrapolated, nowhere is it based on whom one professes love for. To the contrary, it is, based in natural law, lex naturalis, which is the system of law that is determined by nature and is thus universal. Embedded also in nature’s law is the use of reason to analyze social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of behavior from it. As fundamentally significant as marriage is to our culture, our society, and our civilization, the institution cannot be simply redefined based on fad or political correctness without negative consequences.

Dr. Patrick Fagan, a sociologist and psychologist, has said, “The family is the fundamental building block of society and predates the state and even the societies it builds…At the heart of the family is the mother and father who bring their children into existence.” This is a self-evident truth, regardless of who said it; and anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, and politicians have reiterated that very sentiment. The family is the building block of society and civilization; and the cornerstone to that foundation, or the genesis of it, is a mother and a father.

Foundations must be strong, and built to withstand the elements, corrosion, and the test of time. Otherwise, the structure built thereon will inevitably crumble. If a foundation is made with unmixed cement or just water, as same-sex marriage tries to do, the foundation is weak; and the structure (our civilization) built thereon will crumble. When we tamper with, and attempt to socially-engineer, the foundational elements and institutions to civilization and our society, the results will be destructive.

Redefining marriage based on who one purportedly loves is a spurious dilution of our societal foundation. At no time in human history has marriage been legally based on who one loves, but has always been about perpetuating the species and forming familial units that construct the foundation to civilization. Sometimes it has included multiple spouses; but always it has been based on propagational properties, whether age or fertility exceptions apply or not. Any semantic change to the definition is only that, semantic, and does not change the biological or anthropological verities etymologically embedded in the term. Such a change to accommodate same-sex “marriage” is therefore nothing more than creating a verbal counterfeit to the real thing. Referring to a snake as a swan doesn’t change it into something that it is not.

Nor is there a “right” to marry whomsoever or whatsoever we please, or profess love for. Such a right is, as most other “rights,” claimed by those in our society who feel somehow shortchanged, slighted, or disadvantaged. The “right” is not codified in any legal document, much less our founding documents, just like the “right” to health care, or the “right” to a good job. Heterosexual marriage, however, is codified in natural law, as attested by biological and anthropological fact. The test is simple: try building a civilization or a society from scratch with anything other than natural law, heterosexual marriage. As an attorney friend of mine said, “there is absolutely no logical interpretation of the Constitution that can stretch sufficiently to include the definition of marriage as a judicially definable term.”

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has warned that the door to what can be legitimized as a legal relationship is now wide open. “This doesn’t just stop at heterosexual marriage or same-sex ‘marriage,’ but it also will extend to bigamy and incestuous marriage and all kinds of situations. If the government doesn’t have any interest in [marriage], then polygamy is permissible, polyamory is permissible. We would have group marriages. Incestuous marriages are permissible. Marriages with … children as young as 8 or 7 or however low you want to go on the list — all of that becomes a free-for-all.”

Dr. Charles Krauthammer makes the same argument. “Traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender. If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices, then on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?”

Other factors now become arbitrary and exclusionary as well. A Missouri man feels he was discriminated against when the state disallowed his marriage to his chosen “partner.” He says of her, “She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her.” He can now employ the same charge of “discrimination” that is precluding him from “marrying” his favorite mare, Pixel.

Doug Mainwaring, an avowed homosexual, has made an astute observation regarding marriage. “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together…Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”

Words have meaning; and marriage, as the cornerstone to civilization, is copiously imbued with it. I have yet to hear a logical or cogent explanation as to why a binding homosexual relationship must be a marriage as opposed to a civil union or legal partnership. Rather than weakening and diluting the foundation to our society, we should be strengthening and encouraging it. After all, our future, and stability, as a society is dependent on it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at [email protected].