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:
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.
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 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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?”
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.
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.
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.
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 50th 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].
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.
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
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.
“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].
|
Every time the subjects of quantitative easing, debauching currency, and gross domestic product enter a conversation, most Americans’ eyes seem to get a sleepy haze over them as they check-out of the conversation. “Don’t think about it. It’ll just get you upset.” In other words,“I’m taking an Ambien. Wake me up when the fiscal crisis is over.” As if the $17 trillion debt and all its nightmarish consequences will float away to la-la land if they sleep long enough.Sleeping away daunting fiscal problems was attempted by Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle 200 years ago. In the famous short story, Rip escapes to the woods to avoid his wife nagging about the farm’s struggling finances. He imbibes some strange liquor and falls asleep. When he opens his eyes again, he is shocked to discover his dog is gone, his rifle is rusted, and he has a long beard. Back in the village his wife has died and the portrait of King George III has been replaced by General George Washington. Rip’s world has changed dramatically.We are also living in a changing era as America’s position in the global market shifts and outside countries keep our fiscal moves under close scrutiny.In a best case scenario, economists estimate that, in ten years, if interest rates don’t raise and there are no wars or recessions and depressions, we will pile on an additional $7.2 trillion to our already whopping national debt. This will put us close to $25 trillion in the red with a crippling $799 billion a year payment in interest alone.Left unchecked, by 2020, 92 cents of every federal tax dollar will be needed just to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. If these are the optimistic calculations for our near future, the realistic reckonings should keep Americans awake pacing the floors at night. In the corporate world, there will be nearly a $500 billion trade deficit this year, compared to the 1980s when it was $300 billion. This means we are spending $500 billion more on products made outside of the United States than what we are exporting out to other countries. We also have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, at 39.2%, which further discourages corporations to remain on U.S. soil and has contributed to the loss of nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs from 2001-2010. With Russia and the Middle East in major headlines, it’s interesting to compare the World Bank statistics. Russia’s debt-to-GDP ratio, a calculation used by investors to determine if a country can pay back its debt, is only 13.41% with $509 billion in reserves. Iraq’s is 31.34% with $77 billion in reserves. America has $448 billion in reserves, but this is hardly impressive when coupled with a deplorable debt-to-GDP ratio of 101.53% and a $17.8 trillion debt bill. China has an impressive $3.88 trillion in total reserves and is also the biggest foreign buyer of U.S. Treasuries by holding over $1 trillion of our debt. As hard as the numbers have been to swallow over the years, we cannot just get bored of the “money talk,” close our eyes, and wake up when it’s over. Rip Van Winkle was lucky that, after 20 years, the only things he missed were the death of his nagging wife and the American Revolution. If we were to wake up after 20 years of denial and unbalanced budgets, instead of seeing George Washington’s picture over Rip’s favorite mantel, it could very well be Xi Jinping, China’s paramount communist leader, and you’d have to pay for your beer with the new world currency. I suggest we either accept the inevitable pains associated with legitimately fixing our borrowed prosperity now, or plan on sleeping for at least another 100 years. We’d all best wake up and hide the sleeping pills! _________________________________________________________________ Ashley R. Smith is a freelance writer and columnist who has volunteered for various charitable and Americanist causes, including providing regional leadership to mentor teens. As a mother of six children she resides in Colorado, holds a black belt in women’s self-defense, and a degree from Brigham Young University. |
A talk by Mrs. Julianne Young delivered April 11, 2014 at a Freedom Rally in Pocatello, Idaho.
A cry jolts the still, sleepy morning to life. “There’s a skunk in the coop!” Dad scrambles for his gun, bed-heads crowd at the window, and bare feet streak across the dewy lawn. Dad cautiously peers ‘round the doorway while we all hold our breath. Two feathered friends lay dead in the straw with gaping, bloody wounds, while a dozen others mill about expressing their distress in a chickenish fashion, upset and oblivious all at once.
A white stripe shrinks into a dark corner where murderous, beady little eyes watch and wonder what we will do next. One chicken calmly saunters past the shadow, looking the skunk over quizzically.
That skunk will be hard to hit in the shadows. It will be him or Dad! Then—BLAM! BLAM! The skunk stirs and an acrid, skunky smell fills the air. One final BLAM! All is still. We run, choking and crying! But the chickens haven’t even noticed. They hop and pick their way through the carnage, gossiping and clucking.
A skunk lurks in society’s coop as well. He cowers in vague generalizations, rarely showing his true, deepest colors. His tidy fur coat and voluptuous tail proclaim world peace, prosperity for the masses, and personal fulfillment. He makes black, white, and white, black. He boldly invites all to embrace him, assuring us that his aims are irreproachable and mocking those who hesitate as old-fashioned, close-minded, naive, or bigoted. His odor permeates the media, our politically correct communications, and our public schools. He has been working, day and night, for decades in a deliberate and well-organized way to undermine God-given liberty and bring about a self-proclaimed silent revolution through “countless small adjustments.”
Many see troublesome symptoms and strut around expressing chickenish sentiments. They pick through the mess, decrying it— a rising divorce rate, fatherless children, STDs, lengthening prison roles, skyrocketing debts, a teetering national economy, illiterate high school graduates, and rampant drug and alcohol abuse. Others are too cauterized by their ball games, their entertainment, and the pursuit of the almighty dollar to notice that anything is happening at all. Surely, if they ignore it, it will go away. A third group calmly saunters up to the shadow, admiring its fierce, independent nature and the voluptuous coat they see there.
The skunk is real, and he is dangerous. His velvet coat is called humanism. His velvet claws are socialism or communism, which are “as alike as two peas in a pod.” He is not just another step in the political evolution of America, nor is the carnage about him the result of stupidity or clumsiness. He is cunning, consistent, well-organized, and deliberate. If you want to understand better what I am telling you pick up a copy of Vance Smith and Tom Gow’s well-documented book, Masters of Deception. There are copies at the Freedom First Society booth. The skunk’s self-declared intent is to destroy and devour, and as long as the chickens tolerate or ignore his presence, they are in great danger. Complacency and Compromise are the keys to our sure demise.
Wake up chickens! Stop picking through the carnage and open your eyes to the deliberate, organized, well-funded skunk. Stop giving him the authority to educate our chicks, provide for our physical needs, and dictate the future of our nation. Stop voting for skunks that don chicken headdresses and then vote for the conservative path to the destruction of our God-given, inspired Constitution.
That Constitution is our protection. It is the walls of our coop! It is a binding contract between God, the people of America, and those entrusted with public office. It means what it meant at the time we entered into it. No court on earth has the right to re-define the terms of that contract. Even the Supreme Court is inferior to the Constitution. It was not even a party to the initial contract and only exists under the authority of that sacred document. It is absurd to even suggest that a creation could be given the power to define their creator.
No politician on earth has the right to negate the provisions of the Constitution by supporting unconstitutional programs or policies. The Freedom First Society has put together an excellent online voter guide at freedomfirstsociety.org that assesses voting records, not by some conservative index, but based on the Constitution. This voter guide screens out posturing or party-line votes which mean nothing, but are often cast just to make a politician look a little more chickenish. It’s time we woke up to the reality that compromise is not a virtue when one is compromising away the lives, liberties, and properties of the American people, now and for generations to come.
Lastly, we cannot afford to tolerate continued support for Constitutional amendments. A Constitutional Convention is one of the greatest threats to that sacred document, and no Constitutional amendment is worth that risk. The Constitution is not broken and giving the skunks the authority to remodel the coop will never provide more security! Any politician that will compromise the security of the coop in this regard is not a true friend to the Constitution or to the chickens, no matter how conservative they are or how good their remodel project sounds.
Wake up little chickens! There is nothing a skunk fears more than truth. Get educated! Get organized! (The Freedom First Society has a great little book called Organize for Victory!) Take aim and FIRE!!! Sooner or later it will be the skunk or us. May God bless us with the wisdom to spot him, the courage to face him, and the ability to win. Thank you.
It’s always fascinating to see the public responses to columns challenging the notion that man is “causing” the earth to warm. Predictable are the personal attacks against such purveyors of contrarian dogma, as well as references to the favorite buzzwords and invalidated theses. It’s difficult to understand such fierce loyalty and fealty to a theory invalidated by their own models. Whether they’re looking for meaning in life by “saving the world” by diminishing their CO2 footprint, or they’re susceptible to the mainstream media propagandistic endorsement, it’s hard to say.
Let’s start with the obvious, which for some is not obvious, nor easily accepted. According to NASA, globalFig.A2 temperatures have not increased for 15 years. Here is the chart for actual temperatures as published by NASA clearly illustrating the cessation of warming in 1998.
The plot appears dramatic, but notice the scale on the left axis. From 1880 to 2013 the range is .8 of one degree Celsius.
We can then look at the chart developed by former UN IPCC Lead Author & Climatologist Dr. John Christy which plots 73 global warming models. The models’ projections are based on climate sensitivity to manmade carbon dioxide. In other words, the models reflect the premise that man is causing, or at least contributing significantly to, warming of the planet. Yet not one of the models even comes close to reality based on NASA’s empirical data. The mean average for those models is nearly 1 degree Celsius higher than what has been observed for the past 15 years.
Why is this significant? Because it shows that, based on their own theories, and their own calculations of climateFig._A3 sensitivity to manmade CO2, that they’re all wrong. If their theories about the greenhouse potency and feedback of carbon dioxide emissions were correct, their model projections would match reality. And it’s not the earth that’s at fault; it’s the models and their underlying theory! When they’re so wrong for so long, how can anyone with a semblance of cognitive functionality even possibly consider taking them seriously! 
I can’t help but conclude what a phenomenal job it is to be an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scientist. Come up with these alarmist theories to provide global governments the premise to regulate and tax what we exhale as a pollutant; rake in hundreds of millions from government grants to do so; generate sophisticated models to ring the warning bells of catastrophic manmade global warming; be proven totally wrong empirically, and yet still be heralded by media, academia, environmentalist activists, and low-information citizens, as ultimate authorities on the issue, and claim to be right!
With such an abysmal record of projecting reality, now 15 years and running, it would be like a stock analyst in my industry forecasting a decade-and-a-half of bull markets, and be proclaimed a market guru even if all 15 years were bear markets! It’s logically impossible to be right, as claimed by media, academicians, and AGW sycophants, when the alarmist’s calculations, as evidenced by their projections, are completely wrong!
Last month the German news publican Der Spiegel interviewed Hans von Storch, renowned German Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. Storch said “scientists are so puzzled by the 15-year standstill in global warming that if the trend continues their models could be fundamentally wrong.” Could be? Do you think? After fifteen years of being wrong, it seems rather obvious that the underlying premises have already been empirically invalidated. He continued, “We are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”
“There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us,” said Storch. “The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes,” Storch added. Now that’s an astute statement of the obvious. And notice how he was more concerned that they were all wrong, rather than that the earth was facing cataclysmic warming.
And just a quick note on the “97% of scientists” buy into the AGW hypothesis statement so often repeated by the alarmists. This figure of “consensus” originated from the “Doran Survey.” This was a nonscientific survey of 77 climate scientists polled for a master’s thesis. And it’s been debunked as a flawed and statistically invalid “survey.”
So how do most scientists really feel about AGW? According to Forbes, citing peer-reviewed surveys in February, only 36% of geoscientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis, and a solid majority believe what warming is occurring is from natural sources.
If the AGW argument was correct, their models would be accurate. Since they are not, their basic premises are obviously flawed. And to say there’s a consensus is equally fallacious.
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].
Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.
This will close in 0 seconds