Progressive groups and leaders are working hand in hand with “conservative” groups to promote a rewrite of our federal Constitution. Some “conservatives”[i] like Mike Farris and Kris Kobach deny this reality, but other “conservatives” flaunt it. Backing both sides are the Progressive and “conservative” billionaire boys’ clubs. What does this tell us and what does it tell us about those who deny it is going on? It appears what is in the works is a Progressive/moderate-establishment Republican compromise.
The current campaign to rewrite the Constitution started over 50 years ago as part of a Rockefeller and Ford Foundations’ billion dollar effort to fundamentally change the Constitution and transform our form of government.[ii] Virtually every “conservative” non-governmental organization (NGO’s) and conservative “talking head”[iii] that is promoting this rewrite is funded or was set up by the billionaire boys’ club associated with the Koch brothers.
Truth Gets Out on the Con of the “Con Con”
One of those advocating re-writing the Constitution (Constitution Revisionists) let the cat-out-of-the-bag on the “bi-partisan”[iv] vision for an Article V amendments convention to rewrite the federal Constitution.
Missouri State Senator Jason Holsman, another Constitution Revisionist, recently stated,[v]
“My feeling is that once a convention is called, we will have to have some sort of grand bargain, such as the convention of ’87.”[vi]
“My feeling” …baloney! This is not a “feeling” that snuck up on Senator Holsman recently and in fact it’s not a “feeling” at all. This is a test balloon to see if some are ready to start accepting the idea of a “grand bargain”, which has been part of the Constitution Revisionists’ plan all long.
There are numerous events and facts which show this to be the case.
Although this Constitution Revisionist movement was initiated and funded by the globalist Ford Foundation, in 1963, the plan was first attempted to be executed by Republicans including “Republicans” Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller and Rep. Pettis on Jan. 14, 1975 with HCR-28. [vii]
In September, 2011, a national conclave of Constitution Revisionists met at Harvard for the Conference on the Constitutional Convention (conconcon.org). The first red flag about this event was that it was co-hosted by a progressive, Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, and a self-professed “conservative,” Mark Meckler, co-founder and then-National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots.
Tea Party Patriots, if not set up as an operative of the billionaire boys’ club, was shortly co-opted after it was set up. National is not a “tea party group” i.e. “grassroots” and it is not conservative. [viii]
The second red flag was that this conference was a who’s who of both Progressive and “Conservative” Constitution Revisionists.[ix] The “conservatives” that appeared were part of the “conservative” billionaires boys club network “bought-and-paid-for.” [x]
The third red flag was that the con-con con website revealed that a ‘grand bargain’ is expected, stating, “If two-thirds of the states pass resolutions calling for a convention, then all sides will have the opportunity to argue for the changes they believe will restore our Republic.”
Based on the above statement we can say, whether or not the “grand design” prompted having the Conference on the Constitutional Convention,[xi] certainly an underlying theme of the con-con con was to orchestrate a “grand bargain” in an effort to get the Progressives and the “conservative” Constitution Revisionists working together. In fact, this cooperation was part one of the “grand bargain.” At best, it is “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach to jointly going after the Constitution i.e., the “structure”[xii] of our government.
The “grand bargain” at the convention which Senator Holsman referenced cannot happen unless progressives and conservatives collaborate to first “trigger” such a convention.
Since this “con-con con,” Mark Meckler has been on tour to visit various progressive leaders to discuss things they have in common.
Meckler met with a Moveon.org leader, Joan Blake at her home, in January of 2013.
The Forbes “contributor” (reporter) covering this meeting describes Meckler and Moveon.org’s Blake as “humanitarian populists of the left and of the right”. Perhaps he really meant to say “humanist socialist”.
The contributor confesses he himself is a member of the “”humanitarian populists” Moveon.org. He describes Moveon.org as being a “majestic example of citizen engagement and a harbinger of the future.” (I guess one can say the same thing about Fidel Castro and his movement a few decades ago.)
The reporter notes the two Constitution Revisionists developed “A great rapport, without compromising principles…” First, if they basically have the same “humanist” principles what would there be to compromise? I think that is our point, the “conservatives” at the higher levels of this movement have a great deal in common with the “left,” as this reporter describes Blake.
He noted: “Neither represented their respective organizations; they were there in their personal capacities only…”Really? Who notified the press to make this private get together a media event. It’s not like either of these folks are royalty or even Hollywood elites.
As it turns out Meckler has had a relationship with Blake for a number of years and they chat on the phone every now and then. Doesn’t exactly sound like Nixon meeting Mao, does it?[xiii]
That both Progressives and “conservative” Constitution Revisionists have avoided attacking each other’s efforts speaks volumes to the “left” and the “right” silently working together to trigger an Article V Amendments Convention.
Another example of this ongoing Progressive/Conservative kumbaya[xiv] at the top echelons of the Constitution Revisionist movement can be found in a joint op-ed published in the Washington Post on 10/31/14 by Progressive senior legal advisor Lawrence Lessig and one of the “conservative” leaders, Nick Dranias (Compact for America, formerly with Goldwater Institute). This kumbaya op-ed was designed to reassure us all we had nothing to fear from the pending “constitutional convention.”[xv]
Lessig and Dranias are “good friends” according to Dranias.[xvi] And, Dranias was a key participant in Lessing’s and Meckler’s “Conference on the Constitutional Convention.”
Lessig and Dranias also noted that “Americans from across a political spectrum are now working together to use that gift.” That “gift” being an Article V amendments convention. Well, they are certainly correct that people from “across a political spectrum” are working to rewrite the Constitution. That “spectrum” is the Progressives and moderate “GOP”, both of whom are being funded by the billionaire boys’ club.
Then there is the organization that Missouri Senator Holsman (pushing the Progressive Wolf-PAC application) is affiliated with: The Assembly of State Legislatures, Inc (ASL).
ASL continues the theme of progressive/”conservative” unity of the Meckler/Lessig con-con con. Yes, we can all just get along. On the ASL homepage they claim,
“… we maintain a strict rule of participation to currently serving state legislators. No outside organizations are allowed to be involved in any way.[xvii] (Emphasis added.)
What we witnessed were the usual suspects, including, but not limited to Rob Natelson, author of the ALEC Article V Handbook for State Legislators, Ryan Clayton, WOLF-PAC Executive Director, who was distributing Progressive Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig’s material to attendees, and Compact for America’s Nick Dranias, who put on a presentation at the Dec. 2014 D.C. gathering for the ASL membership and attendees.
The Democrat/Progressive Senator Holsman serves as the co-President of ASL along with a “conservative” Republican. During the Dec. 2014 meeting at which he was elected (which I attended) Senator Holsman said:
“It doesn’t matter what you believe the solution to be. For some, its campaign finance reform, term limits, or redistricting; for others, a Balanced Budget Amendment, no matter what solution you support it will require 38 states to ratify. Only moderate proposals will have a chance to receive 38, and moderation requires compromise.”
Well, Sen. Holsman, it does “matter what you believe the solution to be.” The Republic cannot handle much more of the Progressive elixir it has been receiving since the beginning of the Progressive era of the early 20th century. (This progressive elixir is now administered with the Progressives holding the spoon and the GOP establishment tipping the bottle.)
I have been down the road of “compromise” of which the Progressives speak. In Progressive parlance, it means conservatives incrementally give up their principles and progressives quietly accept the offer. And, when Sen. Holsman speaks of “moderate” he is speaking of “moderate” Republicans (also known as RINOs, neo-cons, neo-fascists and globalists) who have been undermining conservative (American) principles and values for decades. Yes, moderate Republicans are essentially Progressive Republican RINO’s.
Private non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), set up and funded by the billionaire boys’ club over several decades, populated by corporate and other special-interest stakeholders, have more influence over legislation than the citizenry these legislators were elected to represent.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) are the “left/right” counterparts, of which a large percentage of state legislators belong.
Mason’s Rules, the equivalent of Robert’s Rules, was developed and is published by the private NGO NCSL. Roughly 70% of state legislatures use the NCSL-developed rule book.
A quick search for “Article V” at both ALEC[xx] and NCSL[xxi] reveals that their corporate and billionaire boys’ club members have been collaborating behind closed doors for years (if not decades) to trigger an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments.”
A quick review of the Madison Coalition’s efforts to trigger an Article V Convention reveals these NGO’s have been pursuing this for many years. It is yet another who’s who of state legislators in the leadership of either ALEC or NCSL. More details about these relationships can be found in Patriot Coalition’s Article V presentation.[xxii]
The NCSL is an adjunct of the Council of State Governments (CSG). CSG was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation through its Spelman Fund. NCSL and CSG are both creatures of the billionaire boys’ club.[xxiii]
What Do “Conservatives” Have To Compromise?
Exactly what do “conservatives” have to bargain with except the rights of the people?
Let’s think about this joint venture of the Progressives and “conservatives”. The perspective of the Progressives and actual conservatives is so diametrically opposed, what kind of acceptable compromise could possibly be worked out that would not further damage the Republic? Progressives want socialism with all its big government, government infringement of every aspect of our daily lives: what we eat, wear, drive, read, education (indoctrinating) of our kids, open borders, etc…)
The problem with this “compromise” mindset is that half the participants have no desire to “restore our Republic,” but rather, to create a pure democracy, God-less and devoid of individual rights and responsibilities, favoring instead a collectivist-socialist form of government. The compromise likely is between Socio-fascism or Neo-fascism and the exact road we take to get there.
To the extent there is any real conflict between the Progressive and “conservative” Constitution Revisionist, it is merely over which wolf gets the first bite and biggest piece of the lamb.
Meanwhile, each wolf is telling the lambs they are trying to help the lambs. The wolves are asking for the lambs’ cooperation. We are seeing a lot of naive lambs, even real conservative lambs, helping “their” wolf.
“Conservative” Denials of Progressives in the Article V Constitution Rewrite Movement
Those involved on the “conservative” side of this Constitution Revisionist Movement will interchangeably admit or deny that the Progressives are part of the movement depending on who they are talking to at the time. That they are and have been collaborating with Progressives on this all along is even more taboo a subject.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, darling of Kansas conservatives, told a GOP group on February 20, 2014, “The interesting thing is only conservatives are paying attention. If you ask a liberal he’ll say ‘what is a convention? What’s Article V?’ because we are the only ones that care about the Constitution.” (See video here.)
Kobach is the main supporter of this Revisionist effort in Kansas and has many “conservative” legislators on board. Kobach not only supports an Article V convention, but an interstate compact (Compact for America) tied to an Article V convention and a straight interstate compact approach (Healthcare Compact). In other words, like other “conservative” Constitution Revisionists, he will dangle any carrot before unwitting citizens and legislators to get the people’s approval for the Revisionists’ efforts to get their hands on our Constitution, including denying the existence of the Progressive Constitution Revisionist factions.
Only a deaf and blind person would believe such drivel that Progressives are not involved.
There are many Progressive organizations that are promoting the idea of a constitutional rewrite. MovetoAmend.org has over 400 organizational supporters ranging from Code Pink to Occupy and many of them have a George Soros connection.[xxiv]
The Limited Open or Open Limited Convention
Yes, Senator Jason Holsman, a Progressive Democrat, is completely on board with the national/special interest-driven effort to trigger a convention to rewrite the Constitution. He has filed a resolution in Missouri (SCR- 24) under the pretense of requesting Congress “call” an Article V convention to reverse the Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, yet their application[xxv] merely requests Congress “call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America…”, which is an application for an “open” convention. [xxvi]
In reality, the Progressives (and other Constitution Revisionists) don’t just want to overturn this case; they want to limit our Freedom of Speech under the guise of overturning this case. In reality, what they really, really want is just the opportunity to get their mitts on our Constitution.
The Progressive organization which wrote the resolution adopted and introduced by Sen. Holsman is WOLF-PAC, and its parent organization, The Young Turks (headed by a Turkish-born Sunni Muslim, thus, perhaps the name), is funded by billionaire Progressive extraordinaire, George Soros. The Young Turks boasts that it is “the largest online news show in the world…”
This is a transparency issue. Shouldn’t the WOLF-PAC resolution that Sen. Holsman has introduced as his own have at the top of the bill “By Sen. Holsman and WOLF-PAC,” or at least say somewhere in the document, “Language furnished by WOLF-PAC.” Don’t “We the People” have a right to know who is really behind the resolution?
Maximum transparency is a conservative issue (and pillar of the people’s Liberty) and on first blush our conservative politicians would agree with the above, but they don’t point this out because they don’t want to say “By ALEC” or “By Convention of States Project.” For example, HCR-5010, introduced by Kansas Rep. Pete DeGraaf, would include a disclosure such as “Drafted by Convention of States Project; introduced by Rep. DeGraaf.”
Imagine if the sponsors of Obamacare had disclosed in 2009 that Jonathan Gruber “was writing the bill with the White House,”[xxvii] or that the bill had to be written that way because the American voters are “stupid.”[xxviii]
Patriot Coalition, for which I am general counsel and lead attorney in drafting such legislation and resolutions, has active legislation and resolutions in Congress, state legislatures, and local governments across the country. When we propose, present, promote our model legislation, we brand it so all who care to know, do know, where it came from.
If legislation that’s not authored by the sponsors required full disclosure as to whether the legislator wrote it himself, or it was given to him by a third party, then the citizenry, and other legislators, could more easily discern whether there was some hidden or special-interest agenda at play.
Senator Holsman stated: “The two proposals [WOLF-PAC and Convention of States Project applications for an Article V amendments convention] are not in conflict.” Holsman’s statement confirmed what Patriot Coalition has been saying for nearly a year. The progressive WOLF-PAC and conservative “Convention of States Project” Article V applications both deceptively[xxix] request an “open” convention, and could be aggregated to reach the 34 application threshold necessary to require Congress to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments.”
Split in the “Convention of States” Ranks
Although Mark Meckler is out and about promoting Progressive – “conservative” unity and cooperation on this Constitution Revisionist effort, his underling, Mike Farris, staunchly denies such.
Patriot Coalition and other Constitution defenders we have been working with have followed Mike Farris all over Virginia and North Carolina. He has stated all over Virginia and North Carolina that the Article V amendments convention he is promoting is “his convention.” Farris says he is “not afraid of George Soros” and that if Soros wants an Article V convention Soros will have to get his own.[xxx] At least Farris is not denying the Progressives are aware of Article V or are seeking its benefits for their purposes. This is more honest that those that say the Progressives don’t even know what Article V is.
“Constitutional Convention” or “Convention of States”
Recognizing their failure in the previous four decades, some of the Constitution Revisionists struggled to find a term other than “constitutional convention,” which in the minds of many invoked fears of an open or “runaway” convention. They insist that an Article V amendments convention is not a “constitutional convention”, although Black’s Law Dictionary defines a constitutional convention thusly, “A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.” (Emphasis added.)
It is interesting to note the phrase and organization “Convention of States” (COS) was developed as a branding device/marketing tool after the 2011 Conference on the “con-con.” The premise behind the COS brand is to convey the false narrative that an Article V amendments convention is a meeting of, and controlled by, the states.
Of course, the Supreme Court has noted that the amendment process under Article V is a federal procedure controlled entirely by the Constitution and in fact the only authority the states have as to Article V is under the Constitution. And, when states are involved in an Article V procedure the states are fulfilling a “federal function”.[xxxi] Although the “Convention of States” folks won’t accept it, just because one is invited to a party doesn’t make it “their” party.
The “con con” versus “amendments convention” debate is another diversionary issue Constitution Revisionists invoke, but in reality is a distinction without a difference. [xxxii]
In fact, some of the main Constitution Revisionists, both the Progressive and “conservative”, continue to recognize this amendment procedure to be a “constitutional convention” but insist that there is “No reason to be wary of a constitutional convention”.[xxxiii] This is the position of Lawrence Lessig and Nick Dranias.
To realize how long this “left vs. right” political contrivance has been going on look back to the 1924 statement of G. K. Chesterton:
“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” – Illustrated London News, Apr. 19, 1924
Yes, there is a “grand bargain” in the works between the Progressives and the “conservatives” (GOP RINO/moderates). This is not a “grassroots” movement. It is not a state legislature-initiated movement. The architects of this “grand bargain,” working through their NGO’s, think tanks, and private associations, funded by special-interest, corporate, and billionaire boys’ club members have been hammering away at “fundamentally transforming” our Constitutional Republic for over half a century, claiming that this how democracy is supposed to work.
Benjamin Franklin framed it best, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” The socio-fascists and neo-fascists cannibals have invited “We the People” to dinner, and are asking us to pass them the salt.
What is being set up under this Constitution Revisionist movement is for the Progressive wolves and the “conservative” wolves to get together to decide who gets what is left of our Liberty. The really sad part about it all is they could not pull it off without the help of conservatives and conservative politicians and that is exactly what we are doing, setting the table at a dinner at which we will be the ultimate guest of honor, the dinner.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted in his 1963 “Strength to Love” speech the following: “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
The Holy Bible advises and warns us about the perils of these relationships and how we should handle them:[xxxiv]Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Richard D. Fry Founder, November Patriots General Counsel, Patriot Coalition General Counsel, FIRE Coalition Richard@patriotcoalition.com
[i] The use of the term “conservative” in quotes is meant to include those individuals or organizations that represent themselves as conservatives, or are represented as being conservative, but that in reality are not, and the actual conservatives, who are primarily working at the lower levels of this Constitution Revisionist movement do not fully understand the history, motives, or ramifications of this movement, and are assisting it out of ignorance and/or desperation.And for the latter group, I would offer the following wisdoms: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted in his 1963 “Strength to Love” speech the following: “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” “When an honest man finds he is wrong, he either stops being wrong, or he stops being honest.” – Anonymous
[ii] “The Ford Foundation’s Pursuit of Globalism: The Con Con Connection”, Richard D. Fry, (2014)[iii] Sean Hannity (funded by Heritage foundation since 2008) Rush Limbaugh (funded by Heritage foundation since 2009) Glen Beck (funded by Freedom Works since 2010) Mark Levin (funded by Americans for Prosperity since 2010) ALEC (Koch funded and supporter of State Policy Network (Also Koch Funded)) Heritage Foundation (affiliated with State Policy Network (SPN)) State Policy Network (a Koch funded organization to coordinate activities of other NGOs) Freedom Works (SPN affiliate) CATO Institute (Koch funded and SPN affiliate) Independence Institute (Koch funded and SPN affiliate) Goldwater Institute (Koch funded and SPN affiliate)
[iv] At the Indianapolis Assembly of State Legislatures, Inc. (ASL) meeting in June, 2014, the Rules Committee recommended language that would identify the non-profit association (NGO) as a “non-partisan” group, but the assembly opted to change that language to “bipartisan” to reflect their sentiment that this would be primarily a two-party organization, namely, the Democrats and Republicans.
[vi] Senator Holsman is, of course, talking about the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 at which the proposal was made to abolish the old government, which had been established with the Articles of Confederation, and established a whole new government.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 803 (1995) “After the Constitutional Convention convened, the Framers were presented with, and eventually adopted a variation of, “a plan not merely to amend the Articles of Confederation but to create an entirely new National Government with a National Executive, National Judiciary, and a National Legislature.”
That entirely new government was that which was established under our current Constitution. When this issue is raised, the Constitution Revisionists always try to attack the messenger by saying the person doesn’t like the current Constitution or they are calling George Washington a traitor. I have heard this from almost all the leadership of this current campaign to rewrite the Constitution including Mike Farris, head of the “Convention of States” and his superior, Mark Meckler. This is the typical “progressive” type attack mode these guys use.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I love the Republic including the Constitution. This is typical Progressive logic: they are fighting to rewrite a Constitution they admit is not flawed and I am trying to defend and preserve the Constitution, and yet I am the “traitor”. Only a victim of public education’s “dumbing down” could be hooked by such logic.
[viii] The Tea Party’s Next Move (February 10, 2011)
- Tea Party standout joins leadership of disruptive super PAC (April 20, 2012)
- Compare the Leviathan Obamacare to the Fair Tax and What Do You Get? (November 13, 2013)
- Follow the Money to the Article V Convention (Freedom Outpost, October 15, 2014)
[ix] Groups and individuals in attendance at the Conference on the Constitutional Convention included The Young Turks, Coffee Party (vs. the Tea Party), Green Party, Progressive Democrats, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks (WOLF-PAC founder) and “conservatives” (Tea Party Patriots, Goldwater Institute, Compact for America), and Cato Institute). See: http://www.conconcon.org/people.php
[x] The “conservative” billionaire boys’ club network of special Interest propaganda and governmental influence:
According to Muckety (http://www.muckety.com/) and other sources the State Policy Network (SPN) is funded by the Charles Koch Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation (Adolf Coors family). SPN is a “hub organization” which other organization join in order to better coordinate their resources and activities. Virtually every “conservative ” think tank” in the SPN is also funded by Koch and Coors and they are all pushing for an Article V: Heritage Foundation (Funded by Koch and Coors), Freedom Watch, CATO Institute (Funded by Koch and Coors), Independence Institute (Funding Koch and Coors)(This is where the legal “guru” for the Article V movement resides, Prof. Robert Natelson), Goldwater Institute (Funded by Koch and Walton family).
ALEC (Funded by Koch) is and has been a major player in the Constitution Revisionist movement for decades, it use to fund the SPN annual meetings and is now an associate member of the SPN.
Major “Talking Heads” supporters have been receiving millions in sponsorship money from the “conservative” billionaire boys club network since this most recent campaign for a Constitution rewrite began in 2008: Sean Hannity – 2008 (Heritage), Rush Limbaugh – 2009 (Heritage), Glenn Beck -2010 (Freedom Works), Mark Levin – 2010 (Americans for Prosperity (AFP)).
AFP was founded by Koch (Richard Fink -Koch Exec.VP) and is funded by David Koch, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (David Koch) and Freedom Partners (Richard H. Fink is a board member)
Freedom Partners also funds the national Tea Party Patriots which supports a Constitution rewrite.
Tea Party Patriots is also funded by an organization headed by Leo Linbeck III and Eric O’Keefe. O’Keefe is a long time operative of the Koch’s / billionaires boys club network having set up and headed several Koch non-governmental organizations.
Kenneth P. Vogel, Lucy Calmont, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck sell endorsements to conservative groups, Politico (06/15/2011) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56997.html
Exposing the Convention of the States (COS) as an Article V Constitutional Convention … and Who’s Behind It All, including Soros & Levin, Secure the Republic (12/08/2013) http://securetherepublic.com/main/exposing-the-convention-of-the-states-cos-as-an-article-v-constitutional-convention/
Muckety- David H. Koch, http://www.muckety.com/David-H-Koch/2226.muckety
Muckety-Heritage Foundation – http://www.muckety.com/16176FD6360AC1CF98F0065AC544BDC1.map
Muckety– Freedom Works – http://www.muckety.com/DDD76C12D4B5644BBB1DCD84E9B5B788.map
- Working Together to Rewrite the Constitution http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18332-working-together-to-rewrite-the-constitution
[xiii] Co-founder of Tea Party Patriots and MoveOn.org co-host a living room conversation on the role of business in government. (January 14, 2013) http://www.livingroomconversations.org/2013/01/co-founder-of-tea-party-patriots-and-moveon-org-co-host-a-living-room-conversation-on-the-role-of-business-in-government/
- MoveOn.org’s Co-Founder Has The Tea Party’s Co-Founder Over For…Tea, Forbes (01/21/2013) http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/01/21/moveon-orgs-co-founder-has-the-tea-partys-co-founder-over-for-tea/
- Citizen University: Joan Blades and Mark Meckler- “How to Talk with the Other Side” (March 23, 2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zejJAVb8pg
- Looking for Common Ground (April 28, 2013) http://www.livingroomconversations.org/2013/04/looking-for-common-ground/
[xiv] Although “Kumbaya” is a folk song, politically it has been defined as “weak consensus-seeking that
fails to accomplish crucial goals.” http://www.loc.gov/folklife/news/pdf/FCNews32_3-4_opt.pdf
[xv] Nick Dranias, Lawrence Lessig, No reason to be wary of a constitutional convention, Washington Post Op-Ed (10/31/14) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2014/10/31/fd550604-6133-11e4-827b-2d813561bdfd_story.html
[xvi] In preparing for an Article V debate in the November 13, 2014 Arizona Legislature between Patriot Coalition and Compact for America, Nick Dranias volunteered that he and Progressive Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig were “good friends” to Patriot Coalition National Director Jeff Lewis.
[xvii] “As the Constitution gives the power of the state option under Article V to the state legislatures, we maintain a strict rule of participation to currently serving state legislators. No outside organizations are allowed to be involved in any way.” http://theassemblyofstatelegislatures.org
[xviii] In the Midst of Wolves: The Indianapolis Assembly of State Legislators (June, 2014)
[xix] Assembly of State Legislatures Meeting (C-SPAN, December 2014)
[xxi] NCSL search result for “Article V” http://www.ncsl.org/GoogleResults.aspx?q=Article%20V
[xxii] Patriot Coalition Article V PowerPoint Presentation (March, 2015)
[xxiii] The Ford Foundation’s Pursuit of Globalism: The Con Con Connection
[xxv] “their application” is used because WOLF-PAC created the resolution which Senator Holsman introduced as his own. WOLF-PAC is a progressive George Soros-funded group.
[xxvi] The first campaign (1973) for an Article V convention to rewrite the Constitution failed because of the concern of having the entire Constitution up for change (as with the 1787 convention). In the subsequent campaign the ‘Constitution Revisionists’ have insisted that an Article V convention can be limited in spite of the plain wording of Article V.
As the 1980’s and 1990’s campaigns failed (for the same reason), the Constitution Revisionists developed the myth that the Article V convention was not a federal event but a state event controlled by the states. In the 1990’s they played with the idea of a “conference of states”. The branding device of calling an Article V amendments convention a “convention of states” came sometime after September of 2011 following the Conference on the Constitutional Convention. This is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this article.
[xxvii] Obamacare Adviser Jonathan Gruber In 2009: Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable (December 30, 2014)
[xxviii] Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Have Killed Obamacare” (Daily Caller, November 09, 2014)
[xxix] We view these applications as “deceptively” requesting an amendment convention limited to a specific issue or subject, as the operative clauses of each open the entire Constitution to amendment. The WOLF-PAC application’s operative clause makes no effort to restrict or limit the convention, merely making a request for Congress to call a “Convention for proposing Amendments” as Article V prescribes.
The operative clause in the Convention of States Project’s model Article V application is so broad that even their own staff counsel acknowledged in a March 15, 2014 debate in Yorktown, Virginia that it effectively opens up the entire Constitution for amendment proposals should such a convention be convened. (See debate video clip here: http://youtu.be/kCApyUYvuRE )
[xxx] Convention of States’ Michael Farris Dismisses Agenda 21 Fight as Child’s Play (April 18, 2014)
[xxxi] In Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled “The argument is that, by reason of these specific provisions, the legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution, and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state. Hawke v. Smith, No. 1,253 U. S. 221; Hawke v. Smith, No. 2,253 U. S. 231; National Prohibition Cases,253 U. S. 350, 253 U. S. 386.
[xxxiii] No reason to be wary of a constitutional convention, Washington Post Op-Ed (10/31/14) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2014/10/31/fd550604-6133-11e4-827b-2d813561bdfd_story.html
[xxxiv] Matthew 7:15: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:15&version=KJV