By Diane Kepus, April 15, 2014, NewsWithViews.com
For the purpose of this article the Baby is the Constitution
and the Bath Water (which is usually pretty dirty) is the ConCon, Convention of
the States, Article V or whatever name you want to give it. I have written
about my feeling on this several times before but now I'm angry.
We have hard hitting Americans who influence the people of
this country pushing for this monster - Mark Levin, George Soros, Sean Hannity,
Rush Limbaugh, David Barton, Michael Farris, Mark Meckler and others <http://shar.es/FOjjd> and THEN we have organizations that are
portraying themselves as Constitutional supportive Americans that are also
supporting a ConCon. All of these people have an AGENDA as to why they want YOU
to
BELIEVE this is the thing to do.
To begin with, all these hard hitters in support of the
ConCon might do well to actually learn what the Constitution says especially
those like Michael Farris who calls himself a Constitutional lawyer. I would
remind the readers so does Obama!
The web page also states "End Corporate Rule, Legalize
Democracy." That should get your attention. They claim their organization
was founded because of a Supreme Court ruling on January 21, 2010, with its
ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Supreme Court
ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy
elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are
legal fictions.
It goes on to say, "The Supreme Court is misguided in
principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule."
REPUBLIC: That form of government in which the powers of
sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either
directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers
are specially delegated.
DEMOCRACY: That form of government in which the sovereign
power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly
or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a
monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect
except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each INDIVUAL person. In a
democracy the sovereignty is in the GROUP. (In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%.
In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those
privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)
When you read it this way you can better understand why SOME
want to get rid of our flag and show no respect for it stating it's just a
piece of fabric, but when you say the Pledge of Allegiance you are not only
pledging to the flag, but is the representation of the Republic.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Remember, some of these
supporters of a ConCon also want to rid our country of God.
Who are the people (BOD) behind this Move To Amend group?
Ashley Sanders, long-time community activist, works for Peaceful Uprising a
climate justice organization and helped organize Occupy Freedom DC and Salt
Lake City; David Cobb, a lawyer who devotes himself to full time activism to
achieve real democracy in the United States; Daniel Lee, is an active member of
Occupy Los Angeles and Inter Occupy. He participated in Occupy encampments
across the country as well as done community organizing locally in Los Angeles;
and George Friday who has a degree in political science, is a community organizer
and works on social justice change. There are 6 more with similar backgrounds but I am not going to bore you - you get the
picture!
So this group wants to use a ConCon to make the world a
better place by becoming a democracy on the Progressive, social justice side.
Here comes the right side - or those who tell us they are
Conservative and believe in the Republic.
Mark Levin- I was a follower of Mark Levin however I cannot
find a rational reason he is supporting/pushing the ConCon other than to back
up what he stated in his book. My personal observation tells me that he has NOT
done his homework. He also does not believe in Nullification - hum!
Levin's reason for a ConCon is a "balanced budget"
amendment of which makes no sense. We have laws on the books that require a
budget every year to be submitted and passed - anyone know how long it has been
since we even had a budget let alone a balanced one? If legislators cannot
follow the laws we already have what makes the supporters of the ConCon think
another amendment would change that?
What Mark Levin said in his book "The Liberty
Amendments" is simply not true. His reasoning of a "balanced
budget" amendment actually would legalize Congress' unconstitutional
spending and it does absolutely nothing to control the debt. The original
writings of our Framers actually told the states what to do when the government
violates the Nullification of the
unlawful act is among the first of the recommended remedies - not one of which is an "amendment of the
Constitution". States should nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal
government yet most of the 50 states are refusing to do that! Why?
In Federalist No.44 (12th paragraph from end), Madison says
elect more faithful representatives! But we keep reelecting the same sorry
people because we know their names and they are in our party. So then you go
read
Washington's Farewell address and he tells you the political
parties will be the ruination of the country because of the egos of men - those
very same men who are trying to tell us we need a ConCon so they can change
whatever they want into whatever they want.
Those of us who respect our Constitution don't want to
change it but require Federal and State officials to obey the Constitution we
have or elect ones who will. The Oath of Office in Art. VI, last clause,
requires federal and state officials to support the Constitution. This requires
them to refuse to submit to acts of the federal government which violate the
Constitution. The Oath of Office requires obedience to the Constitution alone.
The Oath does not require obedience to persons, to any agency of the
federal government, or to any federal court.
David Barton - My spiritual self cannot get a handle on his support
of this ConCon <http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/02/05/david-barton-voices-support-convention-
of-states-in-letter/> venture of
which even his explanation is not clear - it's like walking endlessly in a fog
continually asking yourself 'where did I miss the signs', or 'can I believe
anything he has said' and better still 'can I still trust my gut instincts"? I have always had
very good discernment - sometimes to a fault as people think I am
"stuck-up" and it's not that at all. I love people, but I never walk
into a room until I have scoped it out entirely and find the best place to put
myself. Actually this used to drive my kids nuts when they were growing up
especially when it came to some of their choices in friends.
Michael Farris - He is referred to as a Constitutional
Attorney (although this writer has found following Kris Anne Hall to be more
truthful when it comes to constitutional law). He is the Executive Director of ParentalRights.org;
founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry
College. Home Schooler's parents all over the
country look to Farris almost as their protector and savior
from the big bad wolves and he could be. But his total distortion in regards to
the Parental Rights Act (PRA) is leading all parents down a path of parental
rights destruction.
The Declaration of Independence tells us our Rights come
from God not the government; they are unalienable. The very purpose of the
government is to SECURE the rights God gave to us and when the government seeks
to take away our rights it is time to throw them out with the "bath
water." The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
enumerates 30 + rights and states they come from "man" (constitution
or laws). Not God but Man! Wrong!
Now to take a look at Michael Farris web site
parentalrights.org <http://www.parentalrights.org/> and see what he says about our Rights. If you
take the time to go to the web site you will see that once again it is being
stated parental rights are coming from the Constitution and not God. That they
are fundamental rights not unalienable rights. So now from what I read on the
PR website they state:
Today the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
is approaching a possible ratification by the United States Senate. This
treaty, as harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of
the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with
the long arm of government supervision within the home.
I will take Mr. Farris' own words and turn them back on him.
Yes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child <http://www.chartertruth.com/documentation.html> is a very dangerous document and must never
be agreed to by the United States; however, Mr. Farris uses that as an example
to his followers as the very reason to support his PRA when they are no
different. Both state parental rights are coming from the government not GOD. I
wonder if some of the very religious Home School families realize this.
Now Mr. Farris, for unclear reasons, has decided we should
put our entire Constitution on the line in aiding those who wish to firm up our
country as a Democracy or even worse Tyranny by government.
From Publius Hildah Parental rights: God-given and
Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? 7/2-/13) Farris uses Supreme
Court Justice Scalia's Dissent in Troxel v. Granville <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZO.html> (2000) using this to support his own theory that
unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can't enforce
it, and the right can't be protected. Scalia's stated in part: parental rights
are "unalienable and come from God and are from the 9th Amendment; the Declaration of Independence
does NOT delegate power to the federal courts - only the federal constitution;
It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the
State has no power to interfere with parents' God-given authority over the
rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect
State
Legislators who understand that the State may not properly
infringe God given parental rights]; the federal Constitution does not
authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what "rights"
people have; and the federal Constitution does not mention "parental
rights" so the federal courts have no "judicial power" over
these types of cases.
In his closing, Scalia warned against turning family law
over to the federal government:
".If we embrace this un-enumerated right ... we will be
ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed,
family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at
this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages
of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes
in a flash, and of being removable by the people."
Parental Rights are a state issue so again, maybe Mr. Farris
should go back to law school. When he says: "4. The Parental Rights
Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the
judiciary's exercise of its existing power" his words are false. The PRA
expressly delegates power to the federal and state governments to infringe on
God-given parental rights.
Do you want this man being in charge of any part of a ConCon
or even believe his arguments?
Mark Meckler - Last but certainly not least is Mark Meckler
the former co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) who at the time was
drawing a monthly salary of $12K from grassroots donators to the TPP as well as
Jennie Beth Martin and her husband. Meckler has moved on to forming Citizens
for Self-Governance where he is the President. He states "their focus is
on broadening the philosophical reach of the idea of 'self-governance' outside of
the Tea Party movement." So much for the former support of the grassroots guys!
Now he is trying to play with the big boys!
His simple and misguided reasoning for the support of a
ConCon is "By calling a convention of states, we can stop the federal
spending and debt spree, the power grabs of the federal courts, and other
misuses of federal power. The current situation is precisely what the Founders
feared, and they gave us a solution we have a duty to use. "The actual
solution is nullification not reframing the Constitution.
This is interesting as we already have laws and the
Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in place with
a feeding of the Federalist Papers to oversee all of what he mentions. The
problem is the Politicians refuse to abide by any of them - so what is the
point of adding more amendments?
Just what is the point gentlemen? Since you prescribe
yourselves as Conservatives, what the hell are you doing lying in bed with
George Soros!
Source: C 2014 Diane Kepus - All Rights Reserved
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page<http://www.newswithviews.com> .
No comments:
Post a Comment