- States can bypass Congress in the amendment process.
- Congress will play only a ministerial role in setting the time and place of the convention.
- State make the rules for a convention, by custom, when there is no custom.
- State voting power will be “one state, one vote.”
- A “Convention of States” is an “Amendments” convention, not a “constitutional convention”, so the Constitution is not at risk.
- An Article V convention can be “limited” to a topic or set of topics.
- State Legislatures can control their delegates.
- The ratification process ensures no bad amendments will be passed.
February 18, 2017
February 14, 2017
By Nancy Thorner –
An Editorial in “New York Sun” on February 8, 2017, had this to say about the Gorsuch gaffe:
Talk about disheartening. That’s the word President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is using to describe President Trump’s remarks in respect of the riders of the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The president is upset at their politicking over his order to tighten up on immigration. Is the president’s pique so disheartening? Not to us. What’s so disheartening is to see such a promising nominee to the high court lose his bearings in a storm. (Bold type added)
The commentary goes on to muse that Judge Gorsuch’s complaint to President Trump to Senator Richard Blumenthal, whose authenticity was documented by other senators, “was a gaffe that will be seen as a failure to keep himself disentangled from political questions.”
As expressed in the “The New York Sun” commentary:
What in the world was Judge Gorsuch thinking? President Trump, in remarks to police chiefs, expressed his exasperation with the 9th Circuit’s pettifogging. The president was right and Trumansesque in the bluntness with which he made clear his views of the judges’ shenanigans. Judge Gorsuch then fetched up in the office of the senior Democratic senator from the People’s Republic of Connecticut, and starts wringing his hands about the behavior of the president who nominated him.
Might it be wise to be very skeptical about Judge Gorsuch’s conservatism, considering that graduates from elitist schools all seem to be very agreeable and “nice” to the Left? Might Judge Gorsuch be like another Roberts if confirmed?, even though Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and other conservative Republican radio talk show hosts continue to unconditionally support Judge Gorsuch and summarily dismiss his remarks. Could it be that national syndicated radio hosts like Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity are often pro-Establishment in their own way? All three hosts named are supportive of convening a “Convention of States” (ConCon), which could result in a runaway Convention by those who wish to alter our Constitution
Expressed by Lou Dobbs for Gorsuch to withdraw nomination
Consider what Lou Dobbs, a well-respected host of a weekday TV business show on Fox News Business, had to say on Thursday, January 9, 2017. Having here before been very complimentary about candidate Judge Gorsuch, Dobbs called for Gorsuch to withdraw his nomination. In Dobb’s own words: “Not only did Gorsuch break an ethics rule when he spoke about a political matter, but he spoke so loosely in front of his mortal, ideological enemy, that is, one senator, Richard Blumenthal.
Dobbs indicated that candidate Judge Gorsuch had shown a lack of honor, and if Gorsuch has honor he should withdraw his name out of just the pure disrespect he has shown to our President and also his lack of grace. Dobbs concluded by saying it wasn’t smart for Gorsuch to comment as he did, as one having degrees from Harvard and Oxford.
Pat Buchanan links Gorsuch’s remarks to how Gorsuch perceives Judicial Supremacy
Pat Buchanan’s commentary published on January 8, 2017, Trump must break judicial power, strongly advocates that “a clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.” Patrick J. Buchanan was a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of 10 books. His latest book is “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”
As Pat Buchanan sets forth in his commentary:
“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.
What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said? A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”
Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep. Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of
Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.
Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.
Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.
The Judge Gorsuch issue at hand is not as much about his loyalty to President Trump, as it is about his comment that demonstrates his support of judicial supremacy.
A pro-life nominee never would have embarrassed Trump as Gorsuch has done. Pro-lifers recognize that the federal judiciary overreaches in its authority, as it did inRoe v. Wade with terrible consequences. Pro-life judges understand that the federal judiciary is supposed to be the “least dangerous” branch, subject to checks-and-balances and criticism by the other branches.
Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady would not have caused this fiasco. Neither would have the other pro-life candidates, who are better qualified than Gorsuch anyway. Gorsuch has never served in a legislature, federal or state, and his entire career is devoted to believing in judicial supremacy and stare decisis, including Roe v. Wade. No thanks.
The Federalist Society makes millions of dollars by promoting and defending the federal judiciary. The Federalist Society blocks pro-life judges from being nominated, and instead pushes judges like David Souter and Gorsuch who hide their pro-choice views.
George W. Bush properly withdrew his nomination of Harriet Miers. It seems like Trump was talked into nominating a judge who is not pro-life. It is a complete fiasco now. Donald Trump should do as President George W. Bush did and withdraw his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch and move on. Otherwise the future gets only worse from here.
Other articles written by Nancy Thorner about Judge Neil Gorsuch:
Friday, January 6, 2017
February 14, 2017
February 9, 2017
February 6, 2017
Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?
February 6, 2017
Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?
By Nancy Thorner –
The late conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly left a great legacy and much work to be done. That work was the topic of discussion at this year’s Gathering of Eagles as the attendees planned for the upcoming year.
Representatives of many of organizations Phyllis founded, including her many Eagle Forum chapters, RNC for Life and America’s Future met together at Gathering of Eagles in St. Louis, MO January 26 – 28. The conference was held one block away from the Phyllis Schlafly Center in Clayton, MO, which was dedicated on Friday, January 27.
The weekend included panel discussions on “Pro-Life Matters”; “How to Reach the Next Generation”; “Education and Abstinence”; “What DC can do for you?”; a visit to Phyllis’ home where she wrote, read, and went about her daily life; and a dedication of the Phyllis Schlafly Center with Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft. Phyllis’ life was celebrated with expressions of love which included fond remembrances by many who had been inspired and mentored by her.
What you should know about Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly was a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo, until her death on September 9, 20l7. Phyllis was likewise a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972 through her founding of Eagle Forum, which was successful in its fight to stop radical feminists’ ultimate goal, the Equal Rights Amendment.
Phyllis Schlafly founded Eagle Forum in 1972 and named it after reading the Biblical passage Isaiah 40:31: “But those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.”
At a Trump rally in St. Louis, MO on March 11, 2016 Phyllis Schlafly, in keeping with her 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo, accordingly endorsed candidate Donald Trump. Phyllis wrote a final book before her death six months later in collaboration with Ed Martin and Brett M. Decker, The Conservative Case for Trump.
As fate would have it, Phyllis Schlafly passed away on September 5, 2016, the day before the release of her book. Candidate Trump attended her funeral mass at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis on Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016.
Celebrating Life! Dinner: Janet Porter Promotes Heartbeat Bill
One of several noteworthy events at this year’s Gathering of Eagles was the Celebrating Life! Dinner which featured Janet Porter. Janet (Folger) Porter is the President and Founder of Faith2Action, the nation’s largest network of pro-family groups. Its mission is to win the cultural war for life, liberty, and the family. She also hosts a 60-second daily radio commentary which airs in 200 markets, including the American Family Radio and the Bott radio network, contributes to WorldNetDaily.
Ms. Porter initiated the nation’s first Heartbeat Bill in Ohio on Feb. 2011 to legally protect unborn babies with detectable heartbeats. This effort inspired Arkansas and North Dakota to pass Heartbeat Laws–now the most protective pro-life laws in the nation.
While Janet Porter and Rep. Steven King were both attending the funeral of Phyllis Schlafly in St. Louis in September, 2016, Porter persuaded Rep. King to act by initiating a federal Heartbeat Bill.
“I gave him a packet and Rep. King agreed to introduce a federal Heartbeat Bill, which would protect every baby whose heartbeat can be detected. Ninety to 95 percent of the abortions will be ended with that bill.”
Janet Porter gave this certain and consistent marker: It is with 96 – 97% certainty that a child will survive until a live birth when a heartbeat is heard.
Congressman King introduces Federal Heartbeat Bill
Republican Congressman Steve King, who represents the 4th District of Iowa, followed through with his promise to Janet Porter on January 12, 2017, by releasing the following Press Release statement upon introducing “The Heartbeat Bill” that would require physicians to detect the heartbeat and prohibit the abortion of a baby with a beating heart: (HR 490, the “Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017”).
This bill is modeled off similar legislation proposed in Ohio at the end of last year. Ohio governor John Kasich ultimately vetoed the state’s so-called Heartbeat Bill (which he said he feared might not be constitutional) in favor of a 20-week abortion ban.
Even the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that “the point at which an unborn child possesses a detectable heartbeat” is a “more consistent and certain marker than viability”—where the court allows legal protection.
H.R. 490 is now in the Judiciary Committee. Rep. Steve King needs co-sponsors.
Randy Hultgren as a co-sponsor (R-District 14)
Illinois Congressman Randy Hultgren participated in the 2017 March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday 27, 2017. Rep. Hultgren, having participated in the Washington D.C. event which celebrates life, should volunteer to become a co-sponsor of Rep. King’s bill.
Get behind and help create a grassroots swell for Rep. King’s Heartbeat Bill – Federal HR 490. Contact Randy Hultgren and your own representative and encourage them to support the bill.
To contact Randy Hultgren: Washington, D.C. office (202) 225-2976. Campton Hills District Office: (630) 584-2734
Remember this slogan: “Heart my Heart, Save my Life”
Subsequent articles will cover other memorable events at the Gathering of Eagle, as well as one that will inform readers about the personal side of conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly, observed from a field trip to her home and through others Eagles in attendance, some who knew Phyllis for 50 years.
By Nancy Thorner –
A nation that doesn’t force foreigners to pay for the necessities of government (infrastructure, justice, and defense) is simply committing economic and cultural suicide. “Free trade” Europe outsourced its defense to the U.S. In turn, we outsourced our defense to CHINA. Never has the security of the U.S. been so compromised with a fascist dictatorship able to wreck us economically and militarily at their will. Short of nuclear war, there really is little we can do to prevent the Chinese and their allies from seizing the rest of Asia. Even Europe seems to have a better chance of stopping Russia and the Muslims without nukes than we do with CHINA.
For this reason the Trump administration is trying to rebuild industries upon which our national defense rests. As to the reason the Trump administration is diminishing our defense commitments to Europe and the Middle East, it is because of Islam loving, undemocratic EU that China has an easy target. It is also the reason Trump chose Ted Mallochto represent the US in the European Union.
EU-despising Ted Malloch is not about to hide President Trump’s dislike for the EU. President Trump just doesn’t like the EU: “He doesn’t like an organization that is supranational, that is unelected where the bureaucrats run amok and that is not frankly a proper democracy.”
This nation obviously can’t depend on Canada for help. According to anarticle published on January 18 by Ezra Levant, Justin Trudeau hates Donald Trump. Trudeau’s whole team does — his MPs, his cabinet ministers, his campaign staff. They know they shouldn’t say so publicly, but they just can’t help themselves.Neither can this nation depend on Mexico, who is an open enemy of the United States. 76,000 illegal Mexicans are incarcerated in our Federal prisons; never mind those in state prisons. American taxpayers paid approximately $1.87 billion to house imprisoned illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2014, and almost all of that financial burden was shouldered by the states. Mexican drug gangs run amok in the U.S. and threaten to turn this nation into a narco-state as exists in today’s Mexico.Furthermore, Muslim terror organizations have bases in the Mexican border. But most of all, it is considered politically incorrect to acknowledge that Mexican illegals, like Muslim “refugees”, are a net minus to our society after welfare and legal system/prison payments This article is important to review. It highlights surprising facts about IMMIGRATION ISSUES.Cracking down on visas is legalWith good reason Trump is doing something that supposedly has never been done before when the truth is quite different, cracking down on visas from Muslim countries where the threat of terrorism is high. Having recently celebrated the 44 year anniversary weekend of Roe. v. Wade, we have the usual liberal judges legislating from the bench even though the law is quite clear that what Trump is doing with Muslim visas is quite legal.Moreover, Trump is actually enforcing an Obama directive as to the seven countries he selected to be singled out.“President Trump is carrying out an executive action in support of the US Customs and Border Protection Act of 2015, which relates to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. President Trump did not select seven countries – the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries.”Of course, none of these facts will darken the pages of the New York Times, etc. Steven Bannon is right to call the media the major opposition party to Trump. According the emails released by Wikileaks, 95 journalists openly consorted with the Clinton campaign against Trump. If anything, the post-election has been worse.The problem for the Democrats and their media enablers is that the American people are sick of all these visa holders that end up in sham marriages or stay on illegally. This is a view that no amount of media bleating and staged for the camera protests can change because everyone can see the effect illegal immigration has our country and the consequences of any big group of Muslims anywhere in the world outside a few oil sheikdoms. We are a long way from when an American president could say “Islam means peace” and have any sort of credibility.Democrat Party without leadership dubbed hystericalBeyond simply reality, voters can see with their own eyes where they live or on the Internet that the Democrat Party, as an opposition party, is virtually without leadership or the ability to oppose Trump without hysterical, across the board attacks that are backfiring. Consider whatSenator Liz Warren of Massachusetts is experiencing as she aspires to lead the Democratic Party. The Bernie people rightly feel that Elizabeth Warren betrayed them by not running against Hillary and then by not endorsing Sanders. It is doubtful whether Senator Warren, as the Democratic candidate, would have any chance to be elected president in 2020. She will most likely be fortunate to get by her own Senate reelection in 2018.What is so unusual is that the maneuvering for 2020 is going on so early. Does somebody have a hidden agenda for DNC chairman? Keith Ellison, as the leading contender to chair the Democratic National Committee, is from the same state as Amy Klobuchar, first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in Minnesota’s history, who also aspires to lead the party. As to another woman Democrats could possibly promote as a presidential candidate in 2020, Democrats see Jeanne Shaheen as a possibility.If is thought that if Democrats don’t run a “minority” — women are victims, despite being 52% of the voters — how else can they win? In looking at the extraordinary thin bench of Democrats who are presently in the Senate and also serve as governors, the best hope Democrats may have for 2020 is that someone emerges from the 2018 elections among the following14 states listed with vulnerable Republican governors.
- Arizona (Republican Governor Ducey)
- Florida (Term limited Republican Governor Scott)
- Illinois (Republican Governor Rauner)
- Maine (Term Limited Republican LePage)
- Maryland (Republican Governor Hogan)
- Massachusetts (Republican Governor Baker)
- Michigan (Term Limited Republican Governor Snyder)
- Nevada (Term Limited Republican Governor Sandoval)
- New Hampshire (Republican Governor Sununu)
- New Mexico (Republican Governor Martinez)
- Ohio (Term Limited Republican Governor Kasich)
- Vermont (Republican Governor Scott)
- Wisconsin (Republican Governor Walker)
- New Jersey (Term Limited Governor Christie)Democrat and Republican game plan for 2020The game plan of Democrats is simple: win about half the vulnerable Republican governor seats while holding their net Senate losses to a minimum by picking up potentially vulnerable Republican seats in Nevada and Arizona. If they do so, it would be a huge blow to the reelection chances of Trump and for holding on to a Republican Senate with 22 Republican incumbent seats up in 2020. However, a new Governor would not have the usual ultra-liberal track record of all the rest of the current Democrat Senators and Governors. He/she could pretend to be “fresh” and “moderate” like Bill Clinton did in 1992.The Republican game plan is the opposite: pick up half a dozen or so of the 13-15 vulnerable Democrat Senate seats and hold gubernatorial losses to a minimum by picking up potentially vulnerable Democrat seats in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, including the “Independent” governor of Alaska, a Democrat in all but name.At this point, the Republican game plan, with Trump’s popularity improving and their money and image advantage, appears more plausible. But the Dems do have an ace in the hole in Yellen and the Democrats at the Fed. Volcker squeezed Reagan with money policies so tight they almost destroyed Mexico and other countries in 1982. Although Reagan did back off from his more “extreme policies” by raising taxes in 1982, which prompted Volcker to finally loosen monetary policy, Volcker’s action was not in time for the 1982 elections.
January 30, 2017