Thorner: Trump threatens to “Drain D.C.’s Swamp”

By Nancy Thorner –

The shameless “borking” of Trump to paint him as a woman hater, one who supports violence, a loony-tune, and so much worse, has become non-stop since he became the Republican presidential nominee this past July, fostered by print media and TV networks which have unabashedly joined forces with the Democratic Party for the election of Hillary. Rightly perceived by Republican establishment elite is that Trump, not of the establishment, would shake up the status quo and the power and money that flows to those who support the globalist agenda of the rich and powerful working behind the scenes to control this nation’s destiny, such as George Soros, Bill Gates, the U.N., Bush and Clinton cartels, members of the elite Republican establishment in the U.S. House and Senate, and foreign countries who gave to the Clinton Foundation in what is known as Pay for Play.

Fifty Republicans, claiming to be national security experts, signed a letter predicting that Trump would be the worst president in history when it comes to keeping America safe. I’m confused!  Isn’t the first duty of the president to keep the American people safe?  How will Hillary’s call for opening the nation’s borders through which murderers, drugs, drug lords, cartels, and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants flow and extending a welcoming mat to thousands of un-vetted Syrians for whom we could query our database until the cows come home and yet draw blanks when no records exist, keep Americans safe?

Unlike Trump, Hillary can’t even define the enemy as Islamic extremist terrorists and her support of the Iran nuclear deal is the worst appeasement policy in modern American history and has compromised our security.

Establishment Republicans Foster Trump Movement

Spineless and incompetent establishment Republicans created the Trump movement when it allowed Obama to ran the show leaving this nation with a $20 trillion plus unsustainable debt and an economy where Obama looks to be the only U.S. president in history who will fail to deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth, lucky if he’ll averages overall a 1.55% GDP growth rate.  Hillary’s promise to raise taxes, which instead of increasing the GDP or fostering job growth, will cripple business expansion and thus job creator.

I’m still trying to comprehend how Republicans, and anyone else, could imagine Trump being worse than Clinton, especially when the main criteria for choosing or rejecting a candidate so often stems from the offensiveness of a candidate’s language.

In the final debate between Clinton and Trump moderated by Chris Wallace, Trump called Hillary a nasty woman. Immediately women took offense.  Maybe if women knew the about Hillary (She also pays women staff members less than men.), they wouldn’t be so judgmental about Trump’s pubic statements.  It has been reported  that Hillary is a rotten person, a really nasty woman when she is in a private situation.  Hillary’s abusive behavior towards people has been noted by many X-secret service agents.  Byrne even wrote a book about how Hillary treats , Crisis of Character. Hillary was described by Byrne as one type of person when in the public, but a total bitch behind the cameras.  Further remarking, “Without doubt Hillary is the biggest phony in politics today.”

If corruption is a troublesome happening, Hillary is the one who steals the show.  In his Project Veritus project, James O’Keefe has exposed corrupt practices with ties to Hillary’s campaign.  O’Keefe’s first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies.  His second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. In Part III, the conversations with Democrat operatives Bob Creamer and Scott Foval suggest Secretary Hillary Clinton may have been illegally consulted and given her approval for adults dressing up as Donald Duck to appear at various Trump activities to antagonize the Republican presidential candidate and his supporters.

Contest Between Globalists and Grass Roots Americans

The upcoming November election is about neither candidate; it is between the globalists and grass root Americans who want to take their country back from the globalists who have charted a new direction for this nation, one that does not align with this nation’s Constitution.  Sometimes called the New World Order, the Globalist Agenda isn’t really new.  It’s the merger of communism and the capitalism system where economic control remains and is concentrated in private hands, and social control is based on collectivism.

Tens of millions are being poured into the Clinton campaign by those who deem it essential, at any cost, for Hillary to win.  Some of the main globalist operatives include the shadowy figure of George Soros who as a billionaire is sponsoring ads through front groups; Bill Gates who through his Foundation is responsible for the failed Common Core agenda in our public schools; and the U.N. with its globalist sustainability policies which Clinton has already signed on to.

Meanwhile, Trump is on the campaign trail speaking to record audiences every day who believe in him and are aware of the numbers stacked against him with a print and TV media that refuses to report on Hillary missteps, her health problems, or the damaging WikiLeaks that have surfaced during the past few weeks.

Trump’s First 100 Days List

Consider what happened on Saturday, October 22, 2016 at a Trump rally in Gettysburg, Pa. where Trump laid out a list of 28 things he would do if elected president in the first 100 day.  The first five are:

1. Propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
2. Institute a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)
3. Require for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
4. Institute a five year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service
5. Create a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

I watched the rally on my TV, but when checking the Chicago area newspapers the next day there was no mention of Trump’s 100 day pledge to restore prosperity to our country, secure our communities, and bring honesty to our government.  Instead, every newspaper and TV account, to my disgust, but not totally unexpected, avoided any mention of Trump’s 100-day plan, but instead covered the remarks he made about possibly suing the women who came out of the woodwork at just the right time to make sexual accusations, some of which have already been proven false.

If Hillary is the victor, might the stupidity and shallowness of the American people be blamed who are being led like sheep, grossly misinformed, to their own slaughter?   I only wish the American people were being fooled.  The tragedy is that there are millions of middle-class Americans who have signed on for food stamps, millions more who only care about having their college tuition paid for by others, and millions of others who are scamming the system by receiving disability checks they’re not entitled to receive. 

Trump Represents Last Line of Defense to Secure Our Freedoms and Restore Nation’s Greatness

What a far cry this is from the country I grew up in when in school the “Pledge” and the singing of “America” always started each school day.  I was taught to love my country, to respect the flag, and to cherish freedom and liberty.  We had a society who believed in the rule of law, moral values were respected, and it was shameful to receive benefits from the government if not merited.

The world is more dangerous than when Obama became president.  His weakness as President has aroused evil, when it is through a show of strength that respect is gained.  Trump is the last line of defense against a continuation of Obama’s failed policies, which would happen should Hillary be elected to preside over Obama’s third term. A Hillary election would render the Second Amendment (gun rights) meaningless and would imperil religious liberty through Hillary’s Supreme Court appointees. 

Trump desires to help this country without any competing interests other than his love for this nation and its people.  His business acumen is also needed

Trump doesn’t need to prove anything, he doesn’t need to become famous, he doesn’t need to become rich, he is already there.  What Trumps is convinced remains to be done in his life is to secure our freedom and restore our nation’s greatness, militarily and economically.

Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 03:28 PM | Permalink

Thorner: An easy way to teach kids about free enterprise

 

By Nancy Thorner – 

As an educator and a patriot, my good friend and mentor, Elizabeth A. Clarke, wanted to make sure that upon her death in June of this year young people would carry on her fight for freedom and liberty, which Elizabeth continued up until the day before her death.  Elizabeth was displeased that so few young people were interested in writing Letters to the Editor or becoming involved in the political process.

Elizabeth was a story teller, at which time her eye would sparkle with delight and her voice would be filled with strength and conviction as she related stories she never grew tired of telling.  Many of Elizabeth’s stories were designed around teaching moments, as was a story related often by Elizabeth during the last few weeks of her life to all who entered her room to provide medical services or otherwise.  She would later tell me of these encounters, which were a source of pleasure for the both of us.

The story referred to is Elizabeth’s simplified version of “The Bread Machine.”

As Elizabeth informed me, her version was ideal for teaching young children how the Free Enterprise System works and what happens in a society when economic freedom is denied and government dictates.

Following is the simplified story Elizabeth related to me and to those she came in contact with:

• Many years ago lived a King, who wanting to be liked and revered, informed all his subjects there would be free bread for all.

• The farmer upon hearing the king’s edit, said, “Why should I grow wheat if bread is now free?

• The miller upon receiving the news, said, “Why should I mill wheat if bread is now free?

• The cart driver who drove the bread to market, said, Why should I load and cart bread to market if bread is now free?

• The seller of the bread decided he would hide all bread from the eyes of customers.  When the king’s subjects came in for the bread they were told, “There is no free bread.”  

Elizabeth, upon telling her Incredible Bread Machine tale to medical providers who came to her home, would ask each person if they would still do the same for her without compensation. All responses came back a resounding NO.  

Elizabeth Clarke’s simplified story of “The Bread Machine” is reminiscent of R. W. Grant’s allegorical poem published in 1966, “The Incredible Bread Machine.”  Find the entire text here.  The first three verses of Grant’s poem follow:

“His is a legend of success and plunder
And a man, Tom Smith, who squelched world
hunger. Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized
In toys. So, people were surprised
When they found that he instead
Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD! 

The way to make bread he’d conceived
Cost less than people could believe.
And not just make it! This device
Could, in addition, wrap and slice!

The price per loaf, one loaf or many:
The miniscule sum of under a penny.

Can you imagine what this meant?
Can you comprehend the consequent?
The first time yet the world well fed!
And all because of Tom Smith’s bread. . . .”

About ten years later, in 1976, World Research, Inc. made a delightful film version based on Richard Grant’s provocative poem cited above.  “The Incredible Bread Machine Film” includes an introduction by then-Secretary of the Treasury, William E. Simon, and interviews with professors Walter Heller (University of Minnesota) and Milton Friedman (University of Chicago). Moderated by Dr. Richard Rogge (Wabash College, the film also features a cameo appearance by Murray N. Rothbard. The film was honored at an American film festival, but it should be honored by all free men, free economies, and free societies.  It is a film that should be seen by all high school students.  It is around 55 minutes long.  View the youtube video here.           

The movie was based upon the book, The Incredible Bread Machine, written Susan Love Brown, Karl Keating, David Mellinger, Patrea Post, Stuart Smith, and Catriona Tudor, who in the 1970’s were six young people advocating for a free market. They made their case with simple, cool, and precise reason combined with a bit of youthful humor. The book is available for purchase at Amazon.

Educating young people in the importance of the Free Enterprise System, in contrast to the effects of government regulated economic activity, is blatantly absent today in our schools, which are subject to Common Core’s federally imposed progressive agenda.  

Many Americans seemingly berate the capitalistic free market system which has fed and clothed them far better than citizens of other nations.  It is, however, the free market enterprise system, controlled by the daily decisions of buyers, that can produce the outpouring of goods and services that support a high standard of living.

In that ethical fascism prevails in academia and government today, how long can the non-economic freedoms of speech, religion, press, and personal behavior be preserved in a society that has denied man his economic freedom. 

In speaking about presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, Dr. Scott Lively, President of Defend the Family International, an attorney, pastor, and international human rights consultant, he compares the globalist campaign to destroy Donald Trump and his candidacy to the “Borking” http://www.dictionary.com/browse/borking of Robert Bork’s nomination through a massive blitzkrieg of public vilification.  In Robert’s Bork’s situation it was the U.S. Senate who held all the cards.  With Trump it is the people who will be making the final decision.

Lively questions whether we are really going to allow the puppet-masters and the corrupt leftist media manipulate us into letting Hillary Clinton have control of not just the White House, but the Supreme Court, the US military, NATO, and the United Nations?  Are we really going to come this close to overthrowing the GOP establishment, the mainstream media, the European Union interlopers, the demons of the Democratic Party machine, and the iron grip of the globalists and just surrender because (unlike all of us) Donald Trump has moral flaws?

It is important to look at the big picture, remembering that our choice is not really between Trump and Clinton.  It is between freedom, reflected in the Free Enterprise System and slavery, where people become puppets of an oppressive government dictated by globalists and the U.N. 

Monday, October 24, 2016 at 09:44 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Grassroots movement afoot to eliminate Dept of Ed and Common Core

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Heartland Institute hosted a “Stop Fed Ed” event at the Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center on Wednesday, October 12. The event featured Cora Weber, who discussed her role in the grassroots effort to stop Common Core and (eventually) eliminate the federal Department of Education.

Ms. Weber is a second-generation home-educator, single mom of six, and president of the Illinois chapter of the United States Parents Involved in Education (USPIE.ORG). For nearly 15 years, Cora has worked as an advocate for children by promoting awareness of the socialist progressive agenda in government schools. Weber is currently developing an initiative to guide and encourage religious institutions to adopt a more central role in the education of America’s children.

As president of the Illinois chapter of USPIE, Weber is aligned with the STOP FED ED movement, a campaign led by parents, taxpayers, and educators committed to ending the U.S. Department of Education and Common Core, returning control over education policy to the states, where it belongs. Michelle Malkin serves as an advisor to STOP FED ED and there are 33 chapter presidents. The names and contact information for state chapter presidents can be located by checking this website.

As Heartland’s project manager for education transformation Lennie Jarratt said in his introductory remarks, “Liberals believe that government is the answer to everything instead of the free market.” As to why there is a federal department of education, it’s certainly not about children, Weber said. Control through federal dollars amounts to big business. The experiment with federal control of local public schools has gone on for half a century, and it has failed. Children have suffered by being treated as rats in some social engineering laboratory.

The fight against Common Core has exposed the failures of those trying to force a federally-based one-size-fits-all curriculum on states and local school districts. Even strong Common Core supporters realize the name is toxic and have accepted the premise that the federal government should not be dictating curriculum.

Remarks by Cora Weber

Weber’s initial remarks were accepted with nodding agreement by those in attendance: “The present system is stifling instead of letting children flourish.” Weber discussed the background Department of Education: In 1867 the U.S. Congress passed legislation to establish the first Department of Education. President Andrew Jackson signed the legislation that created the department with miniscule staff, resources, and power. It was a non-cabinet-level agency with a mission of improving American education by disseminating sound education information to local-and state-level authorities. In 1979, Jimmy Carter created an independent, cabinet-level U.S. Department of Education as a political favor to the teachers’ unions. It was not linked to the Interior Department or the Federal Security Agency (FSA), as the Department had been since its founding in 1867. Few remember that in 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency on a platform that included abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, as the department had failed to deliver either better test scores or more rigorous curriculum dedicated to academic excellence.

With the establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Education (DOE) came a 60 percent increase in education funding by 2015, but for what? In 1980, the department’s budget was $11.5 billion. By 2015 the DOE’s budget had mushroomed to $67 billion – a 600 percent increase – with these negative results:

• stagnant test scores
• huge bureaucraciesmassive
• increases in the cost of education

In Retrospect: From 2003 to 2015, when Common Core was up and running in many states several years prior to 2015, the 8th grade proficiency level in math and reading was deplorable at 33 percent. Alabama, which traditionally has scored in the low 30s, dropped to 30th in the nation – making the state worse off than it had been before Common Core. 

Weber asked: If the results from federal imposed education is so dismal, why don’t state leaders just say to the federal government, “We don’t want your little crumbs”?  Some wonder how states will survive without federal education dollars. Here’s how: 91 percent of education funding comes from state and local funds. The federal government provides 9 percent. – but with that 9 percent, the feds control 100 percent of the classrooms. Consider also the millions of man hours that are required to meet federal education mandates. Also, sending funds to D.C. and back to states is not efficient.

ESSA as Stealth Replacement for Common Core

Unfamiliar to many attendees were Weber’s remarks about the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), legislation signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015, to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and replace the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

NCLB breaks Common Core down into 11 different programs, which must all link with Common Core standards. There are many faults with the bill, which fails to fix the problems in Common Core. A required survey actually asks children how many times they carry a gun or a knife, and whether or not they wear a seat belt. Such personal information should be none of the government’s business! 

There was likewise a $25 billion increase in the funding of NCLB and a 2 percent yearly increase after that with no sunset. Despite glaring faults, which were noted at the time, Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) praised the bill to his fellow senators in a bipartisan agreement made with Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Because NCLB gives unprecedented power to the Secretary of Education, even if a state wants to establish its own educational standards, they must align with the 11 NCLB programs – which the Secretary of Education can then reject if he finds them lacking. Also troubling is that private companies were called in to create the eleven programs.

Cora Weber Pegs Department of Education As Unconstitutional

Providing guidance is an important part of what Weber seeks to do when making her presentations. She wondered why we are willing to let bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. define the term, and determine what education should look like. Weber further stated: “The Department of Education is unconstitutional.”How so? Because the 10th Amendment directs that powers of the federal government not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution shall be left to the states or the people. There is no Department of Education in the Constitution. “Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to regulate or fund elementary or secondary education,” Weber said.

She also emphasized how the educational system needs to “align with principles that never change, and not the system that bureaucrats are trying to impose upon the people.” Weber further warned that home-schoolers are not immune from Common Core, which promotes relativism and socialism, as colleges are more and more requiring that students be educated in the Common Core method through admissions testing. The good news is that the free market is coming up with solutions to circumvent what is happening. To find out what a child needs to know to graduate for high school check here. The requirements for graduation in Illinois are quite lenient. 

What Can We Do to Help Stop Fed Ed?

Suggestions from Cora Weber include:

• Go to uspie.org to  “Join the Movement” and donate
• Like the “Stop Fed Ed National Campaign” Facebook page
• Follow on Twitter: @StopFedEd
  
• Volunteer with the USPIE chapter in your state
• Get candidates in your area to sign the candidates’ pledge

Q&A with Cora Weber 

Question: This nation was founded on the rule of law. What happens when individuals with great power and clout are seen as being above the law?

Answer:  This nation must return back to the Constitution which represents the foundation of our nation. Law affects every sphere of our society as set forth in our Constitution. Presently, Weber is reading George Orwell’s 1984 to her six children. It is important that great literature be taught, because it defines who we are, where they came from, and where we are going.  

Question: How can we circumvent Common Core?

Answer: Weber discussed a “badge-based system.” When a course is completed, and the student has demonstrated that he/she knows the material, a badge is awarded which can then be taken by the child wherever he goes. Churches, at one time, were very prominent in schooling children, and we must once again take up this mantle. It doesn’t cost all that much money to educate children well. But there is a problem: Many churches are seeped in humanistic outreach and grounded in progressive ideology. There are however, lots of fine courses for free on-line.

View here the YouTube video of The Heartland Institute’s Stop Fed Ed event with Cora Weber of USPIE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9PglRPYiC8

Coming Events at The Heartland Institute

3939 N. Wilke Road

Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004

Free, with supper included, but registration is required.

Oct 26, 2016

Women in Politics

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Listen, learn, and get inspired from women who are shaping free-market governing policies in America just days before the 2016 United States presidential election.

Nov 2, 2016

Alex Newman: Crimes of the Educators

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Come join Alex Newman, co-author of Crimes of the Educators, as he discusses his exposé of crimes perpetrated by the education establishment against the American people and, especially, against American children.

Nov. 9, 2016

Heartland Movie Night: ‘The Call of the Entrepreneur’

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Don’t face your uncertain, post-election future alone. Face it with friends at The Heartland’s Institute’s next ‘Movie Night.’

Friday, October 21, 2016 at 02:56 PM | Permalink

Thorner: Mark Levin’s case for an Article V Convention challenged

By Nancy Thorner – 

There is a move afoot, first brought to the mass of grassroots Tea Party participants by Mark Levin, radio host, attorney, and author in mid-August, 2013 with his book, “The Liberty Amendments,” to push the idea of a Constitutional Convention, renamed “Convention of States” or Article V, which Levin and other pushers believe the framers allowed to be pursued through our Constitution.  The Liberty Amendments lay out the case for a Convention of States and proposes eleven amendments. 

Mark Levin insures us in his book that the process has no chance of being hijacked by the leftists/socialists, that the 10th Amendment using nullification is too cumbersome and doesn’t solve the problems we face, and that state legislators, those closest to the voters, are the convention drivers.  How credible is it to believe that the federal government will listen to new amendments that curtail the wrack and ruin now being done if our federal government doesn’t follow the Constitution as written?  However, many Tea Party conservatives, as well as others who feel big government has gotten out of hand, are open to dong something big to rein in the federal government and believe that amending the Constitution is the way to go.

Levin must surely know that the Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone and doesn’t require obedience to persons, to any agency of the federal government, or to the federal court.

Framers proposed nullification as remedy

In contrast to Levin’s proposals, a better policy would be for the states (as the original agents who agreed to the compact between the states spelled out in the Constitution), to enforce through state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, for example, not revise the Constitution.

According to the original writings of our Framers, they actually told the States what to do when the federal government violates the Constitution.  Nullification of the unlawful act is among the first of recommended remedies.  Not one of them recommends an “amendment of the Constitution.”  The Oath of Office at Art. VI, last clause, requires federal and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires them to refuse to submit to – to nullify – acts of the federal government which violate the Constitution. This is how they “support” the Constitution!

Unfortunately nullification is not a term or a concept that the average American has heard before, so it has not been roundly embraced.  The TAC (Tenth Amendment Center) seeks to teach people about the original meaning of the Constitution and how  powerful grassroots coalitions can use nullification as a means to block federal overreach.  Accordingly, the powers delegated to Congress are few and defined.  The Tenth Amendment provides this explicit validation for nullification, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison summed nullification up as follows: 

“…when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act” (4) is “the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against in supportable oppression…”

Levin insists Constitution provides for Article V Convention

Levin and others who support an Article V Convention nevertheless insist that such a remedy is provided for by Article V of the Constitution and that amending the Constitution is the only way to deal with a federal government which consistently ignores and tramples over the Constitution.  This is not so, because Levin’s amendment remedy, instead of fixing government, actually guts the Constitution by increasing the powers of the federal government by making lawful what is now unconstitutional because it is not an “enumerated power.”

Contrary to the claim in Levin’s book that Article V authorizes the “state convention process” and how a convention called by Congress and pursuant to Article V is but a creature of the state legislatures, the only convention Article V authorizes States to convene is one within their respective border to either ratify or reject an amendment proposed by Congress or the convention Congress has called. All States can do is to apply to Congress for Congress to call a convention, which also has the power to appoint whomever they wish to as delegates.

Other false Levin claims

Another false claim made in Levin’s book is that during ratification of our Constitution the Founders always talked about conventions for proposing amendments as representing the States.

Levin relies not on the authority of the Founding Fathers for his above claims, but on an article written by former law professor, Robert G. Natelson, who Levin called an expert in the state convention process.   Levin summarily concluded that it was the custom of the time by our Founders for the States to have the power to call conventions, to determine the method to choose delegates, and the subject matter of the convention.  Accordingly, Levin misrepresented what happened at the Federal Convention of 1787 when claiming that 1) “the Constitution itself provides the means for restoring self-government and averting societal catastrophe and 2) “that Article V expressly grants state legislatures significant authority to re-balance the constitutional structure for the purpose of restoring our founding principles.   Article V said no such thing. Here is an account of really happened.

Levin also relied on Randolph and Mason who on September 15, 1787, said they would not sign the Constitution unless Article V were amended to require another general convention to approve amendments proposed by what they called “state conventions.”  However, Randolph’s and Mason’s plan of state conventions to propose amendments was rejected; they held the minority view.  It was pointed out that by a Mr. Pinckney that nothing but confusion and contrariety will spring from calling forth the deliberations and amendments of the different of the different states.  On the subject of the government at large, states will never agree in their plans.

James Madison contradicts Levin’s claim that an Article V convention offers a prudent way to propose amendments

Regarding the sanctioning of the amendment process, Levin further claims that in Federalist No. 43, Madison considered an Article V convention as prudent a method as having Congress propose the amendments.  Not only does Madison not say this in Federalist No. 43, but Madison further contradicts Levin’s claims in his November 2, 1788 letter to Mr. Turberville.  Here Madison advises that when States want amendments, they instruct their Congressional delegation to pursue it, as this is the best way for the States to “originate amendments”.

Levin’s claim is further contradicted by Madison’s words in his letter of November 2, 1788 to G. L.Turberville on the same subject.  This article by the Heritage Foundation likewise states what Madison thought about State amendments.   

In yet another letter to Mr. Tarberville on November 2, 1788, Madison warned, having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention:

“I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America.. .”

Today we also have violent partisans, individuals of insidious views and those who would exploit an opportunity to sap the very foundation of the fabric of this nation.

Recalling what happened in the Convention of 1787 

It is wise to remember what happened in the Convention of 1787.  Called by the Continental Congress for the sole and express purpose of proposing a revision to the Articles of Confederation, the delegates chose to ignore their charge and instead wrote a new Constitution.  As the Continental Congress had likewise directed the states to appoint the delegates in 1787, today’s Congress would most likely get the delegate it wanted.  This is further confirmed by the absence of a requirement in Article V of our Constitution that States are permitted to appoint delegates who would do what Congress wants and how could Congress be prohibited from doing so?  It is not far-fetched to believe that Christianity could be outlawed, as Obama is already outlawing it in the military.

As pointed out in my Part 1, published at Illinois Review on October 10, 2016, George Soros is waiting in the wings with his Constitution which amounts to an assault on our Constitution.  Soros, and Marxist law professors all over country, want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.

Levin can’t conceive of a runaway Article V convention

Also for consideration is how a new Constitution would have its own mode of ratification.  On page 15 of Levin’s book he attempts to prove that an Article V convention can’t possibly turn into  runaway convention, only to commit a formal fallacy (an argument defective as to form) by attempting to prove that an Art. V convention can’t possibly turn into a “runaway one:

1. Levin was originally skeptical of “the state convention process” because it could turn into a “runaway.”

2. Art. V says a proposed amendment has no effect unless ratified by ¾ of the States.

3. Therefore, the “state convention process” can’t result in a “hijack of the Constitution” [“runaway”].

Few of us have ever bothered to learn the Constitution, let alone to elect candidates who know the Constitution.  Is it any wonder that after more than 100 year of electing politicians who ignore the constitution, we are headed for disaster. 

Except for slavery, this nation was fortunate with the Constitution of 1787, this despite the runaway nature of it.  Consider the caliber of those who was there are the time:  George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin.  Who would their counterparts be in today’s society?  Any honorable candidate devoted to doing the right thing would be drowned out by subversive voices.

Being opposed to an Article V Convention or ConCon doesn’t indicate a distrust of the American public; it recognizes the potential for mischief.   Could this nation tolerate the simultaneous consideration of a parliamentary system, returning to the gold standard, gun control, ERA, school prayer, abortion vs. right to life and anti-public interest laws that would undoubtedly be proposed as amendments from various groups and individuals who do not have the interests of the American people in mind?

Additional anti-con-con information:

Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney and well-known writer and speaker.  Her comments when addressing Eagle Council XLV, held at the Marriott St. Louis Airport-St. Louis, Missouri September 16 – 18, demanded that I pass along her research information to counter those who are pushing for an Article V convention.  Ms. Huldah uses The Federalist Papers to prove the original meaning and intent of our Constitution as conceived by our Founding Fathers.  View here articles by Publius Huldah. Many of them relate to Con Con.

Washington Times

Mark Levin is wrong: A Lawless Government not the Constitution, Needs Nullified 

Phyllis Schlafly

Good Advice Against a Con Con      

Janine Hansen

Article V Convention: Pouring Gasoline on the Burning Constitution

Justice Scalia’s Con Con warning must be heeded

Friday, October 21, 2016 at 03:13 PM | Permalink

Comments

Thorner/O’Neil: Political correctness sets the path towards totalitarianism tolerance

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

It has been recognized for some time that America’s colleges have become learning and training centers for progressives to peddle their political product. Unfortunately,  the liberal “bug” has been caught by high school students as well, infecting them with a rash of radical thinking that should concern all Americans who fret about the future health of this nation.

Upon entering college, most colleges/universities ask freshman students to complete a written survey that asks extremely personal questions. Some parents have concerns about the purpose of asking many of those questions, but that is an issue for another article. The take-away from one of the latest surveys conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles should raise a warning flag for all American patriots. Results revealed that 71% of the incoming freshman students thought that colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus. Over 40% of these incoming students also believe colleges have the right to ban specific people they consider offensive from speaking on college campuses.

This begs the question: who determines which speaker and viewpoint are acceptable and which are not? 

Such behavior indicates a disturbing trend that individuals of conservative and moderate political leanings are likely to deem serious problems. It should raise concerns that our students are not being taught basic lessons of history or the important privileges endowed to American citizens thanks to our founders’ wisdom which provided us with the Bill of Rights and our amazing American Constitution. Too many students in America today lack essential knowledge which would help them understand the many important lessons about our nation’s past.

Wisdom comes when students are taught and given examples of mistakes and disastrous decisions made by other countries with once were great, but allowed supercilious leaders to take away their rights. This loss usually occurs gradually, one freedom at a time. As such, the actions of liberal politicians often are overlooked by the population, until enough power has been transferred from the people to the government, rendering citizens’ rights non-existent. Once the transfer of power is complete, the people no longer have the means to recover what been lost.

Gateway for Totalitarian Government

Such is the way free societies have been replaced with a Totalitarian government which then controlled everything within the country. We know the famous quote: “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”  But do not think it cannot happen here in America.  No country or people are too big to fall.  We all should pay attention to the signs, while there is time to stop and correct any disastrous decision and/or direction. That is why the survey taken by freshman students at U.C.L.A. must be seen as a harbinger that patriots cannot take lightly.  Each of us must be alert to changes we see and speak out about them.  We must demand that all our public schools put an emphasis on teaching our children conservative values that have proven to be timeless and true.  No student should graduate from high school without a knowledge of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Do you know if that is happening in your school district?  If not … ASK!  

Conservatives complain the media is 95% liberal.  Well, that is largely because of our schools.  Teachers and professors play a major role in shaping the ideas and opinions of students who then enter into a variety of jobs and positions which influence society. Some of those jobs/positions, such as those in the field of media, have the ability to shape people to a specific viewpoint, a philosophy which can then impact the direction of our entire country.  Movies, music, television programming, newspapers, books, and/or politics all have left their fingerprints on our society.  Changes in how Americans view an issue are often traced to a trend the media has fostered.  Consider their portrayal of cigarette smoking.  Watch an old movie and most every star has a cigarette in his/her hand or mouth, thus the habit became wide-spread.  Today smoking on screen is almost non-existent and for that society has benefited. 

Today schools are no longer graduating students who have the same values of our forefathers.  Schools no longer encourage students to learn about biblical viewpoints once taught in our schools, when prayer was encouraged and the Ten Commandments hung from the walls in most school classrooms or hallways. Colleges that once had separate dorms for females and males choose to mix the two and thus promote opportunities for sexual encounters. Modesty has become almost non-existent.  This trend has led to even more sexual freedom as faculties promote “comprehensive sex education” classes.   Colleges today have classes with assignments to try a new sexual experience and to make a report on their discoveries.  Liberal professors throughout America outnumber Conservative professors at a ratio as high as twelve to one. 

Our schools are graduating students who enter society with a whole new set of liberal standards very different from those of their parents and grandparents. They are changing America in a multitude of ways with a new set of standards and ideas, many of which are based on sexuality, physical appearance, and the glorification of youth. Unfortunately, this tends to then minimize the worth of many time honored values such as modesty, fidelity, conservative values, and respect for the elderly who have accumulated wisdom through their years of experiences.  These examples of changes in our society can be traced to the many questionable liberal influences of our liberal educators. 

Laws Determine Societal Trends and Direction

Another effective way to change people for the better or worse, and thus nations, is through our system of laws.  Laws permit or prohibit much of what will be tolerated by society.  Liberal leaders produce liberal laws. Those who lived in the 1960s would not have thought “abortion on demand” would ever be lawful in America or that states would be forced by the federal government to allow homosexuals to marry.  Society underestimated the power of liberals who have shared their philosophy with our children, who then perpetuated the liberal agenda.   

Some may argue that liberal ideas are helpful, but often those who promote them do not always consider what seems a good idea at the time can morph into becoming much worse by unintended consequences.   Consider also what happened after our marriage laws changed in the 1970s and allowed “irreconcilable differences” as the only reason needed for a divorce. No longer was it necessary to prove adultery or brutality.  Thus, our divorce rates went from 23% to 50% within 20 years.  Divorce is a tragedy, not just for the couple, but for their family, friends, and ultimately society. 

History has proven that when countries abandon their spiritual roots, practices, and laws, there are inevitable negative consequences.  The health of a country can largely be determined by the number of citizens who honor God and live accordingly.  When schools begin to teach and produce a different product, one that discourages tradition, religion, and time-proven values, there are negative consequences.  

Agents of Change

Those who understand and agree our families and country are beginning to suffer largely due to the liberals dominating our school system, must join the battle to demand equal representation of professors and chancellors.  It is simply not fair or profitable that our school system is dominated and ruled by liberals who are facilitating the negative changes we see today.  

Let’s all call our elected officials and demand that school’ hiring practices be fair.  Ask your elected officials why universities are allowed to hire liberal professors over conservative professors at the unbalanced ratio of 12 – 1. If liberal professors dispute your claim, ask them to provide you with documented facts to the contrary.  Call your local school board and ask if they are teaching students about our wonderful American Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Ask if their students know why free speech must be protected, even if and when it is offends someone.

It is imperative we join together and fight to reclaim what we have lost and restore what has been lost, while we still have the chance to do so.  Doing nothing is no longer an option if we want America to stay the great country we know and love.

Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 09:29 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Time to view Trump through a different set of eyes

Remember how vulgar and demanding but charismatic General Patton was? 

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Clarke – 

Ed Clarke lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan and works as a consultant to high technology companies. During his career, he served as the Chief Financial Officer for three high technology, middle market, privately owned companies with responsibilities in accounting and finance, human resources, information technology, operations and contracts.

Before working as CFO, Ed was a consultant with Arthur Andersen & Co. working on information systems and internal control projects. Early in his career, Ed was an officer in the US Army Signal Corps with tours in Vietnam and at the signal corps product development and research laboratory at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. In addition to being a CPA, Ed earned degrees in Engineering from Harvard and Stanford and an MBA from the University of Chicago.

I first met Ed Clarke, the youngest of three children of Elizabeth and Edwin Richards Clark II, upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth R. Clarke. Here is the Link to my article published on Tuesday, August 30, 2016, at Illinois Review, Heartland hosts tribute to Illinois conservative Patriot Elizabeth A. Clarke.   

It was Ed Clarke’s early career as an officer in the US Army Signal Corps, with time spent in Vietnam, coupled with his career as a consultant and a finance and accounting expert, that prompted me to take seriously the unpublished articles Ed shared recently with me, articles which set forth original perspectives the public needs to know when voting in this very important November election.

Ed Clarke qualified to render judgment

As Ed explained in the first of his shared article, although he didn’t work for Donald Trump, he did work for people like Trump who were bombastic, egotistical, energetic, at times vulgar, but at other times generous and gracious, a person much like General George Patton. Ed reminded us to remember Patton’s signature look of polished riding boots, riding crop and pearl-handle pistols on each hip.  Remember how vulgar and demanding but charismatic Patton was?

Trump, Patton and each of the people Ed worked for were charismatic in their own way.  Ed then expressed surprise at the number of people who would leave the employment of such a person only to later return.  The Trumps of the world are very demanding. They respect those who can hold their own and will stand up to them but had little time for those who would not.

Reflections of Trump as a businessman, entrepreneur and real estate developer

In the words of Ed Clarke:

The undeniable record of Donald Trump as a businessman, entrepreneur and real estate developer is that he found ways for contending parties to work together to accomplish goals. Think what it would be like to be a high profile real estate developer. Besides needing a vision of a market opportunity for a specific property and sketching out what that might look like with planners and an architect, the developer has to convince a planning/zoning board to approve it. She/he has to negotiate with suppliers who can deliver the products needed to the specifications, price and time-line required.  She/he has to work with the building trades to get the building built. 

Deadlines are missed, material is substandard, weather causes delays, there is contention and rancor among the trades, and there are always financial constraints and penalty clauses for being late. At each step, there is no “correct” answer and often no good answer.  The developer must find a way forward that the contending participants support sufficiently to agree and carry it out.

Ed Clarke tells of how he once sat in on a construction meeting for a large building in which the construction superintendent had to navigate through the arguments among the trades as to who was responsible for what and how to prioritize the work when materials were not available on time.  This is the world in which Donald Trump has been successful.

As such, Clarke believes Trump would do the same as President.  He will get people from all sides of an issue together (including Democrats), listen to the opposing points of view and provide the leadership to find a sensible way forward.

About stiffing suppliers

Ed writes:

We read that the Donald stiffed some suppliers.  We cannot know all the facts.  Certainly there can be many legitimate reasons for not paying a supplier everything billed.  Construction is a rough and tumble business.  It is probably true that Trump did not pay every supplier for everything the supplier wanted to be paid.  There are at least two sides to every story.  If Trump really made a habit of treating suppliers unfairly, no one would sell to him.  But the reality is that lots of people do work with the Trump organization so these claims of non-payment cannot be as egregious as claimed.

About Exploitation of Tax Code

“Some people complain the Donald ‘exploited the tax code’ by deducting losses from around 1990 against income from later years.  But you never read that the real estate market in the late 1980s had fallen apart, due largely to bad government policies.  Most capital intensive businesses lost big money during those years,” Clarke said. He went on:

I was working for a building products company at the time. In one year, the business lost $100 million dollars on revenue of $450 million.  The company could not give away an empty office building they owned in Texas.  As for the tax code, Trump is vilified for following the tax code that was passed by the same politicians who are now claiming his actions are somehow wrong.  In fact, the tax code makes lots of sense.”

As a CPA, I know that measuring profit is pretty arbitrary, especially in capital intensive industries like real estate development.  Of course losses in one year should be offset against income in subsequent years! Writers who claim to be qualified on such subjects make it sound as though depreciation, as a non-cash item, is a subterfuge for reducing taxes that is only available to real estate developers.  Such nonsense!  

Of course depreciation is a non-cash item but the capital spending from which the depreciation is derived is a big cash item.  All businesses, not just real estate, are required under the tax code to depreciate capital spending.  Depreciation is just a way to spread the capital asset expenditure over a period of time arbitrarily defined by politicians.  And of course losses in one business are used to offset profits in other businesses. 

Instead of being vilified, Trump should be admired for persevering through this extremely tough time and finding a solution that worked for his creditors as well as for himself.  Lots of people had to sign off on each step of the way.  Trump is vilified for following the law and Clintons are excused over and over again for violating the law.

About Use of Bankruptcy

“We read that many of the businesses started by Donald Trump failed; some went into bankruptcy.  That is what entrepreneurs do. They start businesses. If you don’t have some businesses that failed, you have not tried often enough. It takes vision, tenacity and often times luck.  Rather than emphasize the failures, people should emphasize the successes. People that lost money on these ventures knew they were taking a risk.  If what you are doing is not working ‘cut bait’ and try something else.  We could use some political leadership that takes this approach,” Clarke said.

About Character as Reflection of Children

“Another measure of a man’s character is the children he has raised.  The Trump children and their spouses are people to emulate: confident, independent, well-spoken and each successful in their own right and all very loyal and supportive of their father.  Think how many prominent public citizens cannot say the same.”

Ed Clarke reflects on Trump’s national defense strategy

According to Ed: 

Pundits make this way too complicated. Osama bin Laden showed us the way. He said that people will follow the strong horse. Makes sense to me. And that is what people in the Middle East have been doing, following the strong horses of ISIS, Iraq and Russia.

President Obama and the Democrats have chosen to ‘lead from behind’ (who likes a back seat driver?), dramatically cut defense spending, drive dedicated warrior-officers and religion out of the military and make the military into an experiment in diversity.

Talk to people who recently left the military and you will find that standards have been lowered, morale is down and good people are leaving. All this looks like a very weak horse to me! Obama deploys troops in just sufficient numbers to insure they fail.

Teddy Roosevelt is reported to have said the US ‘should walk softly and carry a big stick.’ Sounds to me like the same thing Bin Laden said. While Trump does not seem to have the patience to explain it this way, that is what he is advocating when he emphasizes rebuilding the military.

If the US were a “strong horse,” domestic Jihadi violence would decline, Clarke said.

“So would Jihadi recruitment. No one wants to back a loser. The best recruiting message for ISIS is Obama and Clinton.”

 

Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM | Permalink

Thorner: “Gun Crowd’s Guru” John Lott warns of “gun free zone” danger

By Nancy Thorner – 

Are you like many Americans concerned about your gun rights, as you have every right to be? The Second Amendment is considered to be one of the most important civil rights in the United States. This right has been under assault because liberals have long had an appetite to impose strict gun control measures.

John R. Lott, Jr., called by Newsweek the “Gun Crowd’s Guru,” addressed 80 members and friends of The Heartland Institute at its Arlington Heights headquarters on Wednesday, October 5. Lott’s talked about the issues raised in his new book, The War On Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies. Lott’s comments took aim at well-funded anti-gun studies and stories that perpetuate false statistics in order to frighten Americans into giving up their guns.

Lott has spoken four times before at Heartland Institute events, but this was the first time at Heartland’s Arlington Heights facility, which they moved into after being located in Chicago for 31 years.

Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He received his Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984, and went on to hold research and/or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford University, UCLA, Wharton Business School, and Rice University. Lott has published nine books, including his latest book, and his publications include over 100 articles in academic journals. His TV appearances include evening news broadcast of ABC and NBC, Fox News Channel, PBS’s The NewsHour, and the Today Show.

Dramatic Prelude to the Event

Before the event got properly underway, Development Director Gwendalyn Carver took the stage to inform the audience that the son of another Heartland executive was recently shot in Chicago. (The young man is now in recovery.) Carver stressed that the victim’s mother wished to stress that “gun control does not stop crime.” “These criminals will always be able to get illegal guns,” Carver continued. “We recognize this is a serious matter, not only in the city of Chicago, but in our families.” She asked all in attendance to pray for the family.

Lott’s initial comments were in solidarity with Carver’s comments about the senseless shooting of a Heartland co-worker’s son. In speaking about urban crime, Lott reiterated how difficult it is to stop gangs from getting drugs. Should success actually be achieved in getting drugs or weapons away from gangs, mused Lott, it would take but 20 minutes before they started coming back into the area. Gang members use the same source to obtain illegal guns as they do to obtain illegal drugs.

Would Background Checks on Private Transfer Be Effective?

Hillary Clinton is pushing a law to impose background checks on the private transfer of guns – which often involves a family member giving or selling a firearm to a relative. Lott said exactly zero criminal shootings would have been stopped by such a law in the last 16 years, according to the latest gun statistics.

Lott reported that 2.4 million so-called dangerous people have been stopped from getting a gun through background checks, but 99 percent of them were cases of mistaken identity. They had the bad luck of having names similar to those of criminals. Unfortunately, many of the cases of mistaken identity negatively affect those who really need guns. He noted that 40 percent of the U.S. Vietnamese population has the same last name; and the “same identity” rate among the U.S. black population is 30 percent.

Why such a high rate of false positives? When an individual fills out and sends in the 4473 Form government bureaucrats are negligent in carefully checking names, Social Security numbers, and the addresses listed on the forms it receives.

The Cost of Gun Bureaucracy

The appeals process to clean up a mistaken identity requires one to hire a lawyer – which is expensive and discourages minorities in high-crime urban areas from getting guns for personal protection.

Also, 16 hours of study is needed to quality for a concealed carry permit in Chicago. Because of the absence of gun shops in the city, those who want training must travel the suburbs. Because of the high cost ($450) of getting a concealed carry permit in the first place, those who most need guns for self-protection are unable to defray the cost.

America’s Mass Shootings Are Not Higher Than in Other Nations

President Obama is wrong when he claims the U.S. is the only country in the world encountering mass, pubic gun attacks, Lott said. During the first seven years of the Obama administration, there were 25 mass shooting in Europe, the same number as occurred here in the U.S. In looking at shootings involving K-12 schools, three out of four of the worst attacks happened in Europe. In France, which has one-fifth our population, four public mass shootings occurred with 532 casualties.

This rather amazing statement was made by Lott: “The murder rate in the rest of the world is 20 percent higher than in the U.S.”  The Solomon Islands, where guns were banned in 1988, is a good example, Lott said. The media had reported not a single act of gun violence in the Solomon Islands from 2001 to 2005. But Lott uncovered the truth by checking the Solomon Islands police records. In fact, the islands, which has a population of 500,000, there were three large-scale public shootings. Why no public accounts of the mass shootings?  The Solomon Islands depend of tourism for operating revenue, and reporting the truth would hurt business.

In Africa gun violence is 380 percent higher than in the United States, Lott added. Israel has a rate 2000 percent higher; and Australia’s gun violence tops America’s by 320 percent.

Gun Free Zones

Lott noted that 98 percent of all mass shootings occur in “gun free zones,” such as a church. Lott talked about the Charleston church shooting, which took place at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on the June 17, 2015 during a prayer service. The shooter cased the church, and determined how long it would take to drive from the police station to the site of his crime. 

In 2012, a gunman opened fire at a screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado, turning the Batman movie into a real-life horror film. The shooter chose the only movie theater out of the seven near his apartment that had a sign posted banning hand guns. Consider also the 2007 Westroads Mall shooting in Omaha, Nebraska. Although there were other malls in the area, the shooter chose the one with the “no guns” sign posted out front.

France’s Attempts to Tackle Terror

Paris, France is at a disadvantage because all venues are gun free zones, as is the situation in other EU countries, Lott said. After the Charlie Hebdo shooting in January 2015, France went on high alert. The president of France opted to put 10,000 military personnel on the street, thinking it would stop gun crime. But it failed, because not all of the military was on the streets at the same time. There were too many targets that required guarding. Three more shootings took place after Charlie Hebdo.

One mass shooting that received wall-to-wall American TV coverage was the Paris shooting which left 100 dead at the Bataclan concert hall at the hands of three ISIS terrorists. Policemen might be the most important factor in reducing crime, but because of their uniforms they are also targets. This was the fate of some of the armed guards in the Paris shootings.

This interesting bit of information was related by John Lott: From 1940 to 1972, machine guns were used in Israel by terrorists. Why did terrorists switch to bombs after 1972?  Because Israeli citizens were permitted to carry guns. Using a bomb meant there would be very little left of the individual(s) targeted by the terrorist, who considered the sacrifice of his/her own life a noble act which offered great rewards in the here after. [It could be concluded that France, and other countries in the West – including the US – are increasingly the victim of a cruel twist of irony in which their own founding values and principles are turned against them.] 

Q&A Session with John Lott

Question: What was the emotional state of the recent American mass shooters?

Answer: Sixty percent of the shooters were under the care of a mental health professional, but not one was identified as being a danger to themselves or others. Why? The mentally ill are considered less likely to be violent than those in the general population.

Question: Why do you have difficulty getting on TV to debate, Mr. Lott?

Answer: Even on Fox producers sometimes call Lott at the last minute to tell him that his debate opponent won’t go on if he’s involved. Either the person insists on appearing by himself, or Lott is asked if he could suggest another person who has the same views to act as a substitute. Those supporting gun control are therefor able to control the message of what people hear and see on TV.

Question: What about crime in Chicago?

Answer: Fifteen percent of all shootings in Chicago result in death. The shootings relate to the large volume of drug trafficking in Chicago and gang turf battles. Furthermore, gang members don’t shoot well but tend to spray when shooting. Corruption is also wide spread in Chicago. Policemen are told to not go into certain areas of Chicago or they will be suspended. Then too, murders are often reclassified as “accidents,” so the actual murder rate in Chicago is unknown.  

Question: How can the crime rate be reduced in Chicago?

Answer: If we really want to reduce crime rates we must legalize drugs. During the last year of the prohibition on alcohol in 1932, murder rates were at their highest levels. After 1934, they fell because the incentive for gangs to fight over turf with one another was eliminated. (The solution suggested by John Lott of how to rid Chicago of gangs is soundly rejected by Nancy Thorner. Comparing the consequences of alcohol use with that of drug use seems shortsighted and without merit, yet the libertarian viewpoint is in line with this message.)

Question: Should airline pilots be allowed to carry guns?

Answer: From 1924 to 1963, every commercial airline pilot was required to have a hand gun with them. Up until 1979, pilots were still permitted to carry a loaded gun on a plane. It was Jimmy Carter who ended the practice.

Question: Why is this presidential election so important?

Answer: There has never so much at stake as there is right now with this election. Some 70 percent of federal judges have been appointed by a Democrat, and the Supreme Court is tied 4-4. One more Clinton appointment is needed to overturn the Heller Supreme Court decision allowing personal gun ownership in Washington, DC.      

Watch the entire Heartland event with John Lott here.

Post Script: In keeping with Lott talking about how difficult it is for members of the black community to become law-abiding gun owners, this video articulately demonstrates the American government’s efforts to disarm Black Americans. The connections with Nazi Germany’s disarming its German Jewish citizenry is striking.

Friday, October 14, 2016 at 03:07 PM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: Lighten up the campaign: Time to call in comedy writers

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil

Most of us appreciate and enjoy cleverly written one-line statements that speak volumes, make a powerful statement, and cause us to smile.  That is particularly true when it comes to political statements, especially during a presidential campaign.  One of the very best at creating amazing one-liners is Burt Prelutsky. 

Burt Prelutsky is a professional California-based writer and a conservative Republican to boot, who is able to churn out three outstanding, witty and attention grabbing essays a week that are available only through subscription service at burtprelutsky@aol.com.

Many of us who appreciate this writer’s skills are convinced Trump would benefit by Burt’s particular talent.  We asked the writer if he might be interested since he had already been writing some great articles favoring “the Donald”, and he expressed interest. Burt could provide the ammunition (witty and clever sound bites) to help Trump counter and unhinge Hillary as she throws the kitchen sink at Trump.  You would think that at least a few Republicans would call upon the talents of professional writers — and not just the usual ones who write rather boring, predictable speeches for every candidate who comes along.

Prelutsky is amazed when he meets people who believe Reagan came up with his own material.  Reagan’s trick was his ability to make it all sound ad-libbed and spontaneous, which, of course, is the trick that every actor has to master to the best of his ability.  Likewise, Jack Benny, Bob Hope, Alan King, and Jerry Seinfeld all depended on comedy writers for their best “one liners.” 

Who is Burt Prelutsky?

Prelutsky has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for a Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. 

For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn, and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile.

As an author, Prelutsky has six books to his credit, three of them political commentary: Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco, Liberals: America’s Termites, and Barack Obama: Your’re Fired.  Sixty Seven Conservatives You Should Meet Before You Die, published in 2012, is dedicated to America’s conservatives who must, on a daily sometimes hourly basis, stand accused of being heartless, brainless, and cowardly–like Dorthy’s companions in Oz.  A sampling of the sixty seven conservatives included in Prelutsky’s book are Michele Bachmann, member of Congress; Pat Boone, entertainer; Andrew Brietbart, website creator; Tucker Carlson, journalist; Pat Robertson, minister; Phyllis Schlafly, writer/artist; Kellyanne Conway, pollster, now Trump’s campaign manager.   Burt Prelutsky’s published books are noted here.  

Two more books by Prelutsky are due out later this year, one based upon a movie he wrote, “Angels on Tap”; the other a memoir which deals with those portions of Burt’s life where it intersected with such notables as Groucho Marx, George Burns, Carol Burnett, Fred Astaire, Mae West, Tiny Tim, Phil Spector, etc

Mr.  Prelutsky gave us permission to share, In Defense of Trump, which he wrote back in August of this year.  It is still timely today and displays Burt’s wit and his ability to hit a home run, as does each one of Prelutsky’s three weekly articles available per subscription on a yearly basis.

IN DEFENSE OF TRUMP

I don’t entirely agree that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. After all, circumstances dictated that we aligned ourselves with the Soviet Union during WWII, but one can easily see how we might have found ourselves linking up with the equally vile Germany to defeat the Soviet Union.

Having said that, when I consider the various elements that have come together to defeat Donald Trump, I can’t help thinking there might be more to be said for his candidacy than I have previously credited to his account.

For instance, just the other day 50 so-called Republicans claiming to be so-called national security experts signed a letter predicting that Trump would be the worst President in history when it comes to keeping America safe.

Huh? 

Let me get this clear. We have a current President and a presidential wannabe who have been instrumental in rolling out the red carpet for Russia in the Middle East; given rise to ISIS, simultaneously making a mockery of the money and lives we had previously sacrificed in Iraq; handed over $1.9 billion to Iran ($400 million of it in the form of an illegal ransom) along with a clear path to a nuclear arsenal; released 166 Islamic terrorists from Gitmo; welcomed thousands of un-vetted Syrians into the homeland in spite of their cohorts having slaughtered hundreds of innocent people in Paris, Brussels, Munich, San Bernardino, Orlando, and Constantinople, during the past year; created space between the United States and Israel — space that hadn’t existed since 1948; and have devoted more time and attention to invalidating the Second Amendment and disarming American patriots than it has to combating world-wide jihadism.

I’m still trying to get my head around the fact that those 50 Republican fruitcakes imagine that Donald Trump could be worse. Naturally, they don’t bother explaining how he would manage to do what strikes me as virtually impossible. Short of detonating a nuclear device in Times Square, what do they imagine Trump could possibly do that would match what the abominable twosome have already done?

Now it seems we have yet another nincompoop vowing to do everything in his power to save us from the unspeakable horrors of a Trump administration. Evan McMullin, a 40-year-old calling himself a Republican who used to have some connection to the CIA, is pretending to run as an Independent. I say “pretending” because anyone entering the race because he hates or fears Donald Trump, knowing he himself has no chance of being elected, is clearly out to help Hillary Clinton get across the finish line.

Mr. McMullin claims he’s an Independent at this point, but in his opening statement declared that Trump is “inhuman and doesn’t care about anyone but himself.” One is left to conclude that McMullin believes, against all existing evidence, that Mrs. Clinton is in fact human and does care about someone other than herself.

In response to a follow-up question, McMullin said that he believed that both Trump and Clinton are unequipped to be the Commander-in-chief. But inasmuch as he surely knows that as an alleged conservative, the only votes he might possibly siphon off are those that would otherwise go to Trump, it’s clear which of the unequipped candidates he would prefer to see inaugurated next January. 

Unfortunately, he isn’t the only spoiler in the race. The Loonytarians have two former Republican governors, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, whose sole reason for running, ego aside, is to grease Hillary Clinton’s slide back into the White House.

I have sought better reasons to vote for Trump aside from his being the last line of defense against a continuation of Obama’s demented policies, and I think these lunkheads have provided it.

Although I certainly prefer Trump’s stated approach to taxes, immigration, trade pacts, the military and the Supreme Court, to anything the Democrats offer, I always worry that Trump might change his mind overnight.

But when I look at the bozos standing shoulder-to-shoulder in opposition to him, I begin to find my doubts vanishing like the morning dew.

In my own case, I have often taken comfort from those who have attacked me over something I’ve written. Often, it’s those who voice their contempt and outrage, even more than those who let me know they’re on my side, who have done the most to convince me that I must be doing something right.

I mean, how bad can someone be if the likes of the Bushes, John Kasich, Ted Cruz [now with Trump], George Will, 50 dopes who think they can predict future calamities — but failed miserably to predict them when that was exactly what they were being paid to do — and some dodo named McMullin who didn’t bother joining the 17 other contenders vying for the GOP nomination when it was actually up for grabs, all agree that you’re the worst thing to come along since unsliced bread?

Even more telling is the fact that these morons have all decided that Hillary Clinton, whose easily-hacked private server might very well be the reason that Dr. Amiri, a nuclear physicist who was spying on behalf of the U.S., was recently executed by Iran, would make a better president.

Hillary Clinton is a woman who is so beholden to the underbelly of black society that she wouldn’t even risk filling out the questionnaire sent her by the national Fraternal Order of Police, lest she risk receiving their endorsement, thus causing consternation to the racists who constitute the membership rolls of the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and the Black Lives Matter movement.

For good measure, Mrs. Clinton is now being sued by survivors of the Benghazi massacre for defamation of character. Apparently she thought she was already the President and could get away with insisting they were lying when they reported that she had blamed the deaths of their loved ones on a video she knew full-well had played no role in the gruesome events of 9/11/12.

Those Never-Trumpers might wish to reconsider their priorities in light of the evidence. Perhaps to salvage their dignity, they might think about declaring themselves Maybe-Trumpers to begin with and then slowly begin calling themselves Probably-Trumpers in September and October, before finally caving in and voting for the far-more deserving candidate in November.  

Why are the two of us so “hot” to tout this man’s talents?  We believe it is in America’s best interest to elect Donald Trump.  Burt has the ability to make complicated issues easily understood, with few but witty words.  That appeals to the vast majority of people: short, clever, enjoyable and informative is hard to beat.  If Trump doesn’t use his talents, we hope you will subscribe to Burt’s articles to be a participant in his outstanding, one-of-the-kind one-liners.

Thursday, October 06, 2016 at 08:51 AM | Permalink

Tags: Burt Prelesky, campaigns, comedy, Donald Trump, Illinois Review

Comments

Thorner: Did Communism really fall in Europe, or was it all a hoax?

   By Nancy Thorner – 

On September 28, 2016, Robert Buchar – associate professor of cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago – spoke at The Heartland Institute about his film, The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story. The film makes a compelling case that the dissolution of the Soviet Union did not bring about the end of global communism.

A political refugee and defector from Czechoslovakia in 1980, Buchar is also the producer of the documentary, Velvet Hangover, which is about Czech New Wave filmmakers, how they survived the period of “normalization” and their reflections on the so-called Velvet Revolution of 1989. He is also the author of Czech New Wave Filmmakers in Interviews, as well as And Reality be Damned… Undoing America: What The Media Didn’t Tell You About the End of the Cold War and Fall of Communism in Europe., which was available for purchase at the event. I highly recommend that book.

Prior to Buchar’s comments, an eight-minute excerpt was shown from his 2012 documentary, which took him eight years to finish. The film unearths the uncomfortable truths that explain the dark forces on the horizon for this nation. View the trailer here.

Buchar began his speech by asking the audience: “Why is it important to known about the fall of communism, when it’s something that happened 27 years ago?” It’s because most young people today have no idea what communism really means. Those who are older will recall how the ideology of communism killed more than 100 million people during its 70 years of dominance over vast swaths of the globe. Yet when communism supposedly collapsed in 1989, the media failed to question where those responsible for the atrocities had fled. It would be folly to believe that millions of communists became capitalists and good citizens overnight. 

Buchar noted how the communists didn’t disappear, but instead became leaders of a new system. This can be observed by noting the makeup of the political parties in former Soviet satellite countries. All were created by and are run by former communists. Thus communism adapted and morphed, developing into what was perceived as a new and seemingly acceptable political system in order to survive and continue its mission.

Because of the West’s own naiveté, the West now has to live in what has become a transformation of communist philosophy. This explains how Bernie Sanders was able to attract so many followers in his failed bid for the presidency in the 2016 election cycle.

Buchar also mused how some people on the left believe the Cold War never existed, claiming it was just propaganda, while conservatives believe the Cold War was won by the West. Accordingly, it would be difficult for conservatives to accept the perestroika deception, because in doing so, they would have to denounce the victory they proclaimed happened.  

Why the rise of socialism around world?

But if the West really won the Cold War, how to explain the rise in socialism around the world? Although the international terrorism advanced and supported by the KGB did end after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, it exploded again in 1996, taking on the forms of Islamic terror and anti-Americanism. As such, Moscow’s deception machine lives on, and has even intensified.

How could this have happened? The West performed in the exact way KGB strategists had anticipated by lowering its guard, eliminating the counter intelligence, awarding Russia millions of dollars, and even accepting Russia as an equal partner. Buchar also noted that notorious double-agent Aldrich Ames was CIA Chief for the Soviet Bloc countries, and all captured Western spies were executed with the exception of one, Oleg Gordievsky.

And what about Marc Rich, the person in charge of supplying millions of dollars to Russia that disappeared down a black hole. He is now living who knows where, after having been being pardoned by Bill Clinton in the very last minutes of his presidency. As Buchar noted, the CIA and MI6 officials both agree that KGB/FSB spying now is higher than ever. Regardless of what it is called – whether the continuing Cold War or Cold War 2 – the global communists’ quest for world domination will continue as long as the they remain in charge of the Kremlin.

Americans to blame

Unfortunately, the American people know little or nothing about Russia’s current political system, the economies of former Soviet satellite countries, or that foreign forces are shaping their lives. At the same time, many Americans know little about what is happening politically in their own nation, believing all to be just fine and dandy.

Buchar explained how the quest to destroy capitalist America started in 1922 shortly after the Comintern was established in Moscow. But why hasn’t Marxism/Socialism been discredited by now given all of its pathetic failure, carnage, genocide and misery? Trying to educate Americans about the threat to their nation is most often met by blank stares of disbelief, he said.

Buchar spoke of a student of his who believed that if communism was done right, it could work – which is very common among young people whose schooling emphasizes this nation’s flaws, rather than the spirit of the American people who built this nation, and who bled and died to preserve the God-given rights of freedom and liberty.

Socialism’s attraction

As to why the idea of communism/socialism is still and has always been attractive, especially to the economically disadvantaged masses, people do love nice dreams. As espoused by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, everybody will get what they need. Free college education and the forgiveness of college debt is now being dangled in front of young people to entice them to vote Democrat.

As Buchar sees it, the goal is more to disturb and destroy Western democracy, specifically in America, rather than to install socialism. Buchar also noted how The Communist Manifesto is still selling very well on Amazon. Stated below is what Nikita Khrushchev said to Vice President Richard Nixon back in 1959: 

“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

According to Buchar, our nation is getting close to that point today. The problem, as Buchar sees it: “The left has a clear goal, the long term strategy, and a well-established network around the globe. They are well organized, disciplined, and devoted to achieve their goal under any circumstances. Conservatives, on the other hand, have no goal or strategy.”

Some Americans are so blinded by political correctness that it has becomes almost impossible to agree on who their enemy is, let alone be able to come up with a successful counter-strategy.

Buchar believes this nation is headed for trouble: a brand of globalism or the establishment of the so-called New World Order which is being pushed by the elites of both parties. They are pulling out all the stops to keep the White House in control of the Democrats, so the long term strategy of those who fostered the deception that Communism died in 1987 can succeed in its planned journey by tricking millions of Americans into believing that socialism is the way of the future.

Understanding what happened between 1989 and 199l – the so-called Collapse of Communism – the key to understanding what is facing this nation today.

Watch the video of Buchar’s presentation at The Heartland Institute, including the clip from his film, here.

Warning issued 32 years ago by Soviet defector and KGB operative unheeded

32 YEARS AGO (1984) Soviet defector and KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov, specializing in the fields of Marxist-Leninist propaganda and ideological subversion, warned us about the silent war being waged against America as part of a long term plan to take over and destroy the American system and way of life.

This youtube video, KGB DEFECTOR YURI BEZMENOV’S WARNING TO AMERICA, reinforces Robert Buchar’s remarks made at The Heartland Institute on Wednesday, September 28, 2016.

In watching the clip you will realize that Bezmenov is describing EXACTLY what’s happening in America today, where by Obama and his gang of Marxist usurpers who now have control of your government are just the culmination of a very long term plan, but are the ones who are about to bring it into fruition.

G. Edward Griffin’s shocking video interview in which Yuri Bezmenov decides to openly reveal KGB’s subversive tactics against western society as a whole: Yuri Bezmenov:  Deception Was My Job

Yuri Bezmenov explains in detail his scheme for the KGB process of subversion and takeover of target societies at a lecture in Los Angeles in 1883: Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society

This is REAL, it is happening now, and it has happened before. November’s presidential election could very well be the turning point for this nation.  Is this new brand of communism really favored by the American people?  It’s frightening to think that a majority of voters might elect to live under a repressive and controlling government.  

Tuesday, October 04, 2016 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

Tags: Communism, documentary, films, Illinois Review, Robert Buchar

Thorner: Article V Convention supporters are delusional new RINOs

By Nancy Thorner – 

 

The Article V Convention (ConCon) is an issue that has been prominent on the agenda of Eagle Forum for many years and which Phyllis Schlafly wrote extensively about before her death on September 5, 2016, at age 92.

 

This extremely important and timely topic was explored in a talk given by Publius Huldah on Sunday, September 18 at Eagle Council XLV held at the Marriott St. Louis Airport-St.Louis, Sept. 16-17-18, 2016.  Her topic:  When People Ignore Our Constitution, Is Amending It the Solution? 

Publius Huldah is a retired litigation attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge).

 

She now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs. She also shows how The People can, by learning our Founding Principles themselves, restore our Constitutional Republic.

According to Publius Huldah, there is no such thing as a “convention of states” to propose amendments. The term is a marketing gimmick used by proponents of an Article V convention to manipulate people into believing that the States would control an Article V convention from start to finish.

Article V of the US Constitution provides these two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution:

 

1)  Congress proposes amendments and submits them to the States for ratification, the method we used for our existing 27 Amendments]; or 2) Congress calls a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.  For good reasons, explained later in the article, we have never used this method.

Framers who actually signed the Constitution, never said the purpose of amendments was to rein in the feds if they usurp powers.   What they actually said:

• that the novelty and difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision (Mr. Gerry at the federal convention on June 5, 1787);

• that amendments remedy defects in the Constitution (Hamilton at the federal convention on Sep. 10, 1787);

• that amendments address the “organization of the government, not … the mass of its powers” (Federalist No. 85, 13th paragraph.

As explained by Ms. Huldah, the federal convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.”  What happened should serve as a warning.  The delegates to the 1787 convention ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and from their States.  They also ignored Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation which required the States to obey Congress on matters covered by the Articles.  Instead, they wrote an entirely NEW Constitution with a NEW method of ratification which required only 9 of the 13 States for ratification. 

 

New constitutions already written waiting for a ConCon convention

 

As Publius Huldah noted, The Left has been pushing for a convention for 50 years, ever since the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the “Newstates of America.”  The Constitution for the Newstates of America imposes a totalitarian dictatorship. (Article XII, Article 1 thereof provides for ratification by a referendum called by the President. The states are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.)

 

But did you know there are other Constitutions already prepared and waiting to be imposed through the means of a convention?  Huldah believes that should the call for a convention succeed, the only issues will be (1) whose Constitution will be imposed by the delegates? and (2) what new mode of ratification will be set forth in the new Constitution? 

 

Constitutions already prepared and waiting for a convention:

• The Revolutionary Communist Party USA has a Constitution for The New Socialist Republic in North America.

• George Soros, Marxist law professors all over the country, Cass Sunstein, and Eric Holder want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.

• The “Convention of States” project wants a “re-written” Constitution which legalizes powers the federal government has already usurped, and delegates new powers to the federal government such as total power over children.  (Not being revealed to conservatives is that the real purpose of a convention it to obtain amendments “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”!

• Under the planned North American Union, Canada, the United States, and Mexico will surrender their sovereignty to a Parliament set over the three countries. The United States needs a new Constitution to transform this nation from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union. It’s about Re-zoning the World: The Merging of the Americas in a New Global Order.”  One of the first major political events that President G.W. Bush was involved in when he took office was the Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, April 20-22, 2001.  At this time G.W. put into action one of his main campaign platforms, an expanded trade program, which he said would revitalize America’s slumping economy, the same economic agenda likewise pushed by his father, G.H. Bush and Bill Clinton with the same ultimate goal —  A One World Government.

Congress has prepared for a convention

 

In the event that an Article V convention should be called, Congress has already examined procedures for “calling” a convention to be ready if and when the need arises. 

The revised Congressional Research Service report of April 11, 2014 and noted here, exposes as false the assurances that the States would be in control of a convention.  Congress has historically viewed its powers respecting “calling” a convention as exclusive and extensive.  It’s also totally consistent with the last clause of Article I, Sec. 8 which delegates to Congress power to make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out the power vested in Congress in Article V to “call” the convention.

 

In the final analysis, the nature of the convention (and its controlling force) will likely not to be resolved unless or until the 34-state threshold has been crossed and a convention assembled.  But should enough states sign on to warrant a constitutional assembly, by then it would be too late to stop a convention from going forward.  Once convened, delegates could whatever they wanted, including coming up with an entirely new Constitution with its own new method of ratification. 

 

Chief Justice Burger wrote in his June 22, 1988 letter to Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly:

 

“. . . there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose. . .”

 

Motivating factor behind ConCon push

 

A cry for a balanced budget amendment is often used as a reason why the Constitution needs to be amended, but federal spending is already limited by the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government as to the list of objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money on.  If it’s not on the list, Congress is usurping powers not delegated when it appropriates money for it, as such the Constitution doesn’t provide a budget.  A balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) would fundamentally transform our constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers, because the federal government would then be authorized by the Constitution to exercise power only any object they decide to put into the budget.  

 

Publius Huldah, in an article published on January 18, 2016, How a balanced budget amendment would give the federal government lawful power over whatever they want, went through the Constitution to make up a list of the objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money.  The first nine on Hulidah’s list of 17 follow:

• The Census.
• Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate.
• Salaries of Senators and Representatives.
• Salaries of civil officers of the United States.
• Pay the Debts.
• Pay tax collectors.
• Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several states, and Indian Tribes.
• Immigration office.
• The mint.

Delegate process to attend convention

 

Supporters of Con Con today are deluded into thinking that choosing wise and honorable delegates would pose no problem because states can make laws controlling their delegates. They dismiss, however, that since it is the liberal Congress, not the States, that would call the convention under Article V and set the rules for it, there is no way to limit what delegates Congress would allow to participate in the convention. The name “Convention of States” is therefore a deception.  The real name should be “Convention called by Congress.”

 

“Never Trump” people are the leaders in pushing the Convention of States. They include Eric O’Keefe (who led the delusional effort at this summer’s Republican Convention in Cleveland to deny Trump the nomination) and Michael Farris (who has continued to publicly criticize Trump). These “Never Trump” people are the new RINOS.  Failing to back the Donald Trump, do we want our Constitution rewritten by them?

 

What would prevent backers of the Convention of States from engaging in tactics of the Left, such as using secret, undisclosed big donors to finance their ConCon projects.  The secret donors may have received secret promises about what a new convention would actually do.  David Koch of the Koch brothers, who may be funding the project, supports abortion and gay rights, and refuses to support Trump.  George Soros is also pushing for ConCon, using his immense fortune to do so.

 

Three circumstances existed for the original Constitution to succeed which do not exist today:  1) secrecy from the media,  2)  the participants had all given their lives to fight against tyranny in the American Revolution, and 3) the selfless leader George Washington presided. 

 

It does not help that 38 states would still be needed to ratify. ConCon would become like a runaway freight train impossible to stop, just as state legislatures ratified the terrible 17th Amendment to change how U.S. Senators are elected.  There is little doubt that the first thing a ConCon would do is to repeal the Second Amendment, our right to bear arms.  In the final analysis, in a nation as politically polarized as ours, you couldn’t get 38 states to agree the sun rises in the east.

 

Most importantly, if Congress is not obeying our current Constitution, how can writing a new one be a solution?

 

Concluding thoughts attributed to Publius Huyldah

 

In the past, conservatives defeated the periodic pushes for a convention. So the Left changed tactics: Now, they are marketing it to appeal to conservatives: they are telling conservatives that a convention is the only way to rein in the federal government. These leftists, some wearing conservatives’ clothing, are using the classic techniques of the Left: They are not telling the truth; they are smearing their opponents; and they have divided conservatives. Conservatives who fell for the marketing have been induced to attack and exclude conservatives who are warning of the dangers of a convention.  Furthermore, the conspirators have built a grassroots operation of volunteers to sell their scheme to State legislators.   

 

Our existing Constitution really was a 5,000 year miracle. We delegated only a handful of enumerated powers to the federal government – you can see what we delegated HERE. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – we need to restore the Constitution we already have. We begin the restoration by reading and learning our Constitution (in light of the Declaration of Independence). And enforcing it!

 

Part 2:   Mark Levin’s so-called “Liberty Amendments” will be shown to do the opposite of what he claims would be the result.  

 

Monday, October 03, 2016 at 09:00 AM | Permalink

Tags: Article V, ConCon, Illinois Review, Mark Levin, Michael Farris

Comments

Live Free or Die said…

Excellent and explains well why we must not support a constitutional convention….

Reply Monday, October 03, 2016 at 10:35 AM