Category Archives: Constitution

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz announces presidential campaign, but is he eligible?

This morning, at Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), announced his 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Cruz at Liberty U., March 23, 2015Ted Cruz, joined by wife Heidi and daughters, announces his presidential campaign at Liberty U., March 23, 2015

Ted Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents were working in the oil business as owners of a seismic-data processing firm for oil drillers. Cruz’s parents returned to Houston in 1974. They divorced when Ted was in law school.

While Ted Cruz’s mother, Eleanor, was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent, Ted’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.

Rafael Cruz was born in 1939 in Matanzas, Cuba. He fought for Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution when he was 14 years old, but claims he “didn’t know Castro was a Communist.” In 1957, 18-year-old Rafael fled Cuba and landed in Austin, to study at the University of Texas, graduating with a degree in mathematics. In 2005, Rafael became a naturalized U.S. citizen. He is a pastor in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas.

Article II, Section 1:5 of the United States Constitution says:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So what does “natural born” citizen of the United States mean?

The problem is that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen” nor is the term found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen.

Stephen Tonchen, in his essay “Presidential Eligibility Tutorial,” presents at least three schools of thought on what “natural born citizen” means:

definition #1: “Natural born citizen” is anyone born in the United States

According to a Congressional Research Service memorandum (April 3, 2009), the weight of legal opinion is that anyone born in the United States, except the child of a foreign diplomat, is a natural born citizen:

The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country) … [Maskell (2009), p.5]

But the Heritage Foundation points out that “prior to 2009, the U.S. State Department [had] . . . seeds of doubt regarding the legal status, at birth, of children born in the United States, of alien parents who are in the United States temporarily or illegally.”

Definition #2: “Natural born citizen” also means a foreign-born child of U.S.-citizen parents

In 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which said:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.

But James Madison, in 1795, expressed concern that someone might erroneously infer from the 1790 Act that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens.

Sen. John McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, to two U.S. citizens, naval officer John S. McCain Jr. and Roberta (Wright) McCain. At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control. In 2008, the U.S. Senate passed Resolution 511 regarding presidential candidate John McCain’s natural born citizenship, but the resolution was nonbinding and had no legal effect.

definition #3: A foreign-born child of a non-U.S. citizen parent cannot be a “natural born citizen”

Then there is the question of whether both the mother and father must be U.S. citizens for their foreign-born child to be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen:

  • According to federal case law prior to 1898, U.S. citizenship at birth was based on the principle of partus sequitur patrem or offspring follows the status of the father.
  • The Supreme Court in Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; and that the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen.

In 2004, Senate Bill S.2128: Natural Born Citizen Act gave a definition of “natural born citizen”, but it never became law. As of today, there is no Federal statute that explicitly defines who is, and who is not, a natural born citizen. Even if there were such a statute, it would most likely be unconstitutional because Congress does not have the authority to change the meaning of the Constitution by passing a law that redefines a term that the Constitution uses. Only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has to date refused to specify what “natural born” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution means. Alternatively, a definition of “natural born citizen” can be supplied via a Constitutional Amendment.

Ted Cruz may be considered a “natural born” U.S. citizen according to Definition #2 only if #2 refers to a foreign-born child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

Ted Cruz is definitely not a “natural born” U.S. citizen under either Definition #1 or Definition #3.

 

Ted Cruz graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1995, so he knows full well the above. And yet it was only after the Dallas Morning News, in August 2013, pointed out that Cruz had dual Canadian-American citizenship that he applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship. On May 14, 2014, Cruz ceased being a citizen of Canada.

Now you know why the GOP never contested Barack Obama’s suspect “natural born” citizenship — he who supposedly was born in Honolulu, Hawaii (but document forensics experts say his Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent) of a U.S. citizen mother but a Kenyan father who was then a subject of Great Britain because Kenya was then a British colony.

See also:

~Éowyn

Delegates To An Article V Convention Can’t Be Controlled By State Laws

By Publius Huldah

Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) sets forth our long forgotten Founding Principles that:

♦ All men are created equal.

♦ Rights come from God.

♦ People create governments to secure God-given rights. The first three words of our Constitution throw off the European model where political power originates with the State; and establish the new Principle that WE THE PEOPLE are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last sentence).

♦ When a government seeks to take away our God given rights, we have the right to alter, abolish, or throw off that Form of government.

These are the Principles which justified our Revolution against a King.

These are also the Principles which permit us today to throw off our Form of government by discarding our existing Constitution and replacing it with another one. This is why the language at Article V of our Constitution, which authorizes Congress to call a convention “for proposing amendments”, does not restrict Delegates to merely “proposing amendments”: Delegates are invested with that inherent pre-existing sovereign right, recognized in our Declaration, to abolish our existing Form of government (our Constitution) and propose a new Constitution.

This has happened once before in our Country. I’ll show you.

The Federal Convention of 1787: Federal and State Instructions to Delegates

Pursuant to Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (our first Constitution), the Continental Congress resolved on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia:

for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”.

The Continental Congress authorized each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the convention. Twelve of the States 1 made laws respecting the appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two (North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose alterations to the Articles of Confederation. 2

But the Delegates ignored the federal and State limitations and wrote a new Constitution (the one we have now is our second Constitution).  Because of this inherent authority of Delegates, it is impossible to stop it from happening at a convention today (which will surely result in a third Constitution).

The Delegates to the 1787 convention also instituted an easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then 13 States before an amendment could be ratified; Article VII of the new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for ratification of the new Constitution.

Why is an Article V Convention Dangerous?

So! Do you see?

If we have a convention today, there is nothing to stop Delegates from proposing a third Constitution with its own new method of ratification.

New Constitutions are already prepared and waiting for a convention. Here are three:

♦ Fifty years ago, the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations produced the Constitution for the Newstates of America. It is ratified by a referendum called by the President [Art 12, Sec. 1]. If we have a convention, and Delegates propose the Newstates Constitution, it doesn’t go to the States for ratification – it goes directly to the President to call a Referendum. The States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Read the Newstates Constitution and tremble for your country.

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

♦ The Constitution 2020 movement is funded by George Soros and supported by Marxist law professors and Marxist groups all over the Country, Cass Sunstein and Eric Holder. They want a Marxist Constitution and they want it in place by the year 2020. It further appears that Soros is funding much of the current push for an Article V convention.

Warnings from the Wise

Brilliant men have warned against an Article V convention. It is immoral to dismiss their warnings:

♦  Alexander Hamilton writes of “the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favorable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded…”  Federalist No. 85 (9th para)

♦  James Madison writes in his Nov. 2, 1788 letter to Turberville that he “trembled” at the prospect of a second convention; and that an Article V Convention would give “the most violent partizans” and “individuals of insidious views” “a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric” of our Country. In Federalist No. 49, he shows that the convention method is NOT GOOD to correct breaches of the federal constitution because the People aren’t philosophers – they follow what influential people tell them! And the very legislators who caused the problem would get themselves seats at the convention so they could control the outcome.

♦  Former US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg reminds us in his Sep. 14, 1986 article in The Miami Herald, that at the convention of 1787, the delegates ignored their instructions from the Continental Congress and instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, wrote a new Constitution. He warns that “…any attempt at limiting the agenda [of the convention] would almost certainly be unenforceable.”

♦  Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger warns in his June 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly that “there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention”; “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda”; and “A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn…”

Can State Laws Control Delegates?

Convention supporters say we don’t have to worry about any of the above because States can make laws controlling their Delegates.

Really? James Madison, Father of our Constitution and a consistent opponent of the convention method of proposing amendments, didn’t know that. Two US Supreme Court Justices didn’t know that. They said there is no effective way to control the Delegates.

But in case you are uncertain as to who is telling you the Truth – and who isn’t – I will show you how easily State laws which pretend to control Delegates can be circumvented.

Let’s use House Bill 148, recently filed in the New Hampshire Legislature, to illustrate this:

Section 20-C:2 I. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“No delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention shall have the authority to allow consideration, consider, or approve an unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America.” [italics mine]

Section 20-C:1 V. of the bill defines “unauthorized amendment” as:

“any amendment outside the scope permitted by the Article V petition passed by the general court of New Hampshire”.

What is wrong with this?

♦ It doesn’t prohibit New Hampshire Delegates from proposing or approving a new Constitution.

♦ Article V of the US Constitution provides that Amendments will be proposed at the convention. Any state laws contrary to Article V must fall under the supremacy clause at Article VI, US Constitution.

♦ New Hampshire Delegates can’t restrict Delegates from other States.

♦ It ignores the inherent sovereign authority of Delegates to throw off both their State governments and the federal government by proposing a new constitution with whatever new mode of ratification they want. Remember! Under the proposed Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.

♦  And if the States already know what amendments they want, they should tell their State congressional delegations to propose them in Congress. This is the method James Madison always advised.

Section 20-C:2 II. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any vote taken by a delegate from New Hampshire at the Article V convention in violation of paragraph I of this section shall be null and void. Any delegate making this vote shall be immediately disqualified from serving as a delegate to the Article V convention.”

What is wrong with this?

♦ What if the Delegates vote to keep their proceedings secret? At the federal convention on May 29, 1787, our Framers made rules restricting publications of their proceedings.

♦ What if the Delegates vote by secret ballot? As long as some vote “for” and others vote “against” every proposition, there is no way to tell who did what.

Section 20-C:2 III. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Every delegate from New Hampshire to the Article V convention called for by the Article V petition shall be required to take the following oath:”

“I do solemnly swear or affirm that to the best of my abilities, I will, as a delegate to the Article V convention, uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the state of New Hampshire. I will accept and will act according to the limits of the authority as a delegate granted to me by New Hampshire law, and I will not vote to consider or approve any unauthorized amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. I understand and accept any penalties that may be imposed on me by New Hampshire law for violating this oath.” [boldface mine]

Does one need to comment on the efficacy of Oaths of Office in our degenerate times? Article II, §1, last clause, of our Constitution requires the President to take an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”; and Article VI, last clause, requires everyone in the federal and State governments to take an oath to obey the Constitution.

Who today honors his Oath of Office?

Section 20-C:2 IV. of the New Hampshire bill says:

“Any delegate who violates the oath contained in paragraph III of this section shall be subject to the maximum criminal penalty under RSA 641:2.”

Any criminal defense attorney worth her salt can figure out how to get around this one:

♦ As shown above, if the proceedings of the convention are kept secret, or Delegates vote by secret ballot, one would never know if any one Delegate violated his oath. Defense counsel would get any attempted criminal prosecution of any particular Delegate dismissed at a pretrial hearing.

♦ Congress can pass a law granting immunity from prosecution to the Delegates.

♦ The Delegates can insert a clause in the new constitution granting themselves immunity from prosecution.

♦ If the new constitution abolishes the States, as does the Newstates Constitution, there is no State left to prosecute Delegates.

♦ The local prosecutor is the one who decides whether he will prosecute any criminal offense under his jurisdiction. Politics are a deciding factor in deciding whether to prosecute. Remember Eric Holder refused to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at a polling place?

Do you see? James Madison, Justice Arthur Goldberg, and Justice Warren Burger were right: It is impossible to restrict the Delegates.

Everything to Lose, Nothing to Gain

If there is a convention today, George Washington, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton won’t be there to protect you. Who will the Delegates be? You don’t know. Do you trust them?

Our Framers never said that when the federal [and State] government violate the Constitution, the remedy is to amend the Constitution they violate. They never said the remedy is to file a lawsuit and let federal judges decide.

They expected us to act as they did – with “manly firmness” 3 – and resist unconstitutional acts of the federal and state governments. Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read and enforced by our votes; and failing that, by manly opposition – resistance – nullification.

Endnotes:

1 Rhode Island boycotted the Convention. See RI’s Statement of Reasons in document at 2 below.

2 For the texts of the States’ instructions to their Delegates and a helpful commentary, go to Principled Policy Blog HERE.

3 The 7th paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” [boldface mine] PH

Publius Huldah is a retired 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 also shows how federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

Texas attorney general: U.S. is heading toward a constitutional crisis because of Obama flouting Congress and courts

Ken Paxton

In an interview on Fox News yesterday, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of the State of Texas, was asked whether America is heading toward “a constitutional crisis” because of Obama’s total disregard for Congress and now the courts. (The segment begins at the 2:55 mark in the Fox News video, here.)

Paxton replied:

“I think we are. If you think about what’s going on here — the President is violating federal law, the U.S. Constitution, which is going past what Congress is supposed to be doing, and now we’ve got the administration in court not being forthcoming about they’re supposed to be forthcoming about. We definitely have a huge issue here related to whether the Obama administration is going to follow the Constitution, and then once they get into court, whether they’re going to tell the truth.”

Paxton’s stunning remark was precipitated by Obama’s latest “F-you” to the court, specifically to Andrew Hanen, the federal judge who is single-handedly doing the job of the useless Congress by standing up to Obama’s reckless amnesty.

Judge Andrew Hanen

Judge Andrew Hanen

On Feb. 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to temporarily block Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states the time they need to pursue a lawsuit to permanently stop the amnesty orders. If the implementation of Obama’s amnesty were not blocked, Hanen reasons, the 26 states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because once the millions of illegals obtain amnesty, “the genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” (See “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals”)

At issue are two executive memoranda signed by Obama last November:

  1. The first memorandum expands eligibility for Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children.
  2. The second executive memo, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

See also “Obama has issued more executive orders than any U.S. president in history.

Combined, DACA and DAPA could affect as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 12 million illegals.

4 days after Judge Hanen’s order blocking the implementation of Obama’s amnesty, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would seek an emergency stay of the judge‘s injunction. (See “Obama emergency order to restart amnesty in defiance of federal judge Hanen”)

Hanen responded by denying the DOJ’s request. So the federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

Obama vs. Hanen

 

The latest tussle between Judge Hanen and Obama took place last Thursday, March 19, 2015.

As reported by FoxNews, at a Texas hearing on Obama’s amnesty executive actions, Judge Hanen sharply scolded a DOJ attorney — that the administration had misled Hanen on a key part of the program, for which Hanen fell “like an idiot.” Hanen said he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds the DOJ indeed had misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ had misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama amnesty program would not go forward before he made the Feb. 16 ruling to temporarily halt it. The program is the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that gives deportation reprieves (i.e., effective amnesty) to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as “minors.” The problem is that even before Hanen’s ruling on Feb. 16 to block DACA’s implementation, federal officials had already given 3-year reprieves and work permits to more than 108,000 illegal aliens.

Kathleen Hartnett Associate White House Counsel Kathleen Hartnett, a Harvard Law grad like Obama, successfully worked on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

At the Thursday hearing, Hanen chided DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the Feb. 16 injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to DACA until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The coalition of 26 states have asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions against the Obama administration because, in the words of the coalition’s lead attorney Angela Colmenero (who is also a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office), DOJ attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming.”

Obama’s DOJ lawyer Hartnett insists “There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here. The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

See also:

~Éowyn

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 7

 “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788 

American Legislative Exchange Council 

Paul Weyrich also founded American Legislative Exchange Council.(ALEC) and was Director/President from 1975-1978. ALEC first came into being in 1973 in Chicago as the “Conservative Caucus of State Legislators.” In 1975, with the support of the American Conservative Union, ALEC registered as a federal non-profit agency. Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians vote behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws that govern your rights. These so-called “model bills” reach into almost every area of American life and, more often than not, directly benefit huge corporations.  In ALEC’s own words, corporations have “a VOICE and a VOTE” on specific changes to the law that are then proposed in your state, and sometimes in the federal legislature. 

The Madison Group, the predecessor to the State Policy Network (SPN – mini Heritage Foundation’s in each state), was “launched by ALEC,” and housed in the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, so says a 1991 report by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Heartland is funded by the Koch brothers, David and Charles, the former being a member of the globalist Aspen Institute. Remember Aspen Institute’s Director was none other than Maurice Strong, author and promoter of UN Agenda 21. NCRP also reported that the Madison Group’s annual meeting was, at that time, “sponsored by Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation,” which was led by Paul Weyrich.

The NCRP report also notes that ALEC was then “housed in the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Heritage Foundation, a seven-story brick building on Capitol Hill, appointed with thick rugs, chandeliers and enormous floral arrangements. On the second floor, near the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and Amway headquarters, ALEC had a suite of offices.” Today, they are housed in Arlington, VA.

deVos

Former Amway President, and CNP charter member, Dick DeVos, and his wife Betsy DeVos, (former chair of the Michigan Republican Party and brother of Erik D. Prince, founder of Blackwater/Xe/Academi) are long-time supporters of the Heritage Foundation and SPN affiliates such as Michigan’s influential Mackinac Center for Public Policy.   ALEC has a huge list of corporate donors. Here is a list of their many corporate members, and here is a partial list of politicians that are known to be involved in, or previously involved in ALEC. Not all dues-paying members of ALEC are included because ALEC does not post its full list, but the list includes politicians who have been in a leadership role in ALEC, as a member of a task force, or other publicly known role. It also includes politicians who have been featured speakers or who have accepted awards at ALEC meetings.

ALEC’s membership is 95% corporate along with 2500 of the 7500 legislators from every state. This is where state legislation originates. For  Tennesseans, remember that state Senator Mark Norris, the bagman for our neo-conservative Trotskyite governor, is a long time member of ALEC. I would bet every state has members of ALEC.

Public-Private Partnerships (P-3) 

NCRP reported, “Privatization is the altar at which the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Madison Group worship. The state think tanks’ agenda includes privatization of most public services, from mass transit to health clinics to environmental protection, and even libraries; vouchers and tax credits; deregulation of business; opposition to labor-backed policies like the minimum wage and family leave; and rollback of taxes.”

In Bill Jasper’s New American Magazine article, The Not-So-Smart ALEC, of April 21, 2014, he states, “ALEC’s model legislation for states promotes a “Public-Private Partnership (P3) Authority Act,” the summary of which states:

“This Act establishes a state Partnership Committee and an Office of Public-Private Partnerships to identify and establish public-private partnerships and approve qualified bidders, requests for proposals, and template contracts. The Act is designed to improve public operational efficiency and environmental performance, promote public safety, attract private investment in the state, and minimize governmental liabilities.”

“In this area, the supposedly “conservative” ALEC is perfectly in step with the “progressive” Obama administration, which has made public-private partnerships (P3) a centrepiece of its statist program. Many of ALEC’s member corporations are also partners in Obama’s Fedgov/Big Business “Manufacturing Innovation” consortiums and other P3 endeavours. They include such well-known names as Boeing, General Electric, Microsoft, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, ALCOA, and ExxonMobil. Hillary Clinton, while Obama’s secretary of state, launched the administration’s P3 Global Partnership Initiative, spreading hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the well-connected.”

ALEC is in the forefront of spreading the P3 gospel at the state level, along with its progressive partner, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC), which, like ALEC, talks a good game of “free markets” while actually promoting corporate subsidies and economic fascism. Please read Erica Carle’s short three part article on the Chamber of Commerce and the New World Order

ALEC’s corporate P3 members are well represented by:

  • Big Pharma (Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genetech, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfi­zer);
  • Big Farm (Altria Group, Archer Daniels Midland, Kraft Food, J.R. Simplot, ­Monsanto);
  • Big Oil (Shell, BP, Peabody, Marathon, Texaco, Tenneco, Chevron, ExxonMobil);
  • Big Banking (Bank of America, Coldwell Banker, Wells Fargo, First Chicago NBD);
  • Big Gambling (Hollywood Casino Corp., Argosy Gaming Co., Boyd Gaming Corp., GTECH Corp.);
  • Big Media (Cox Communications, Comcast, the Wall Street Journal, News Corp., Thompson Reuters, Time Warner Cable);
  • Big Insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield, Farmers Group, GEICO, Liberty Mutual, State Farm, Travelers);
  • Big Tech (Yahoo, Face book, Google, AT&T, eBay, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Sony);
  • Big Soda (Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group);
  • Big Liquor (Seagram & Sons, Hiram Walker, Miller-Coors);
  • Big Box Stores (Best Buy, Home Depot, JC Penney, Lowe’s);
  • Big Auto (Ford, GM, Toyota, Chrysler).

ALEC’s critics on the Left erroneously cite these cosy corporate ties as evidence of the corruption inherent in “free market” capitalism. But the ALEC/Obama P3 “partnerships” are the antithesis of genuine free markets, in which entrepreneurs risk their own capital — not that of the captive taxpayers — to build businesses that provide goods and services consumers freely choose to purchase, not those determined for them by politicians and government planners. This information all came from Bill Jasper’s amazing article, check it out here.

ALEC and the Article V Convention

ALEC has long promoted an Article V Constitutional Convention using the excuse that we need a Balanced Budget Amendment. If you’ve read Publius Huldah’s articles on same, here and here, then you understand what a terrible danger the BBA actually is to our Constitution. ALEC even produced a “Resolution for Limitations on Authority of Delegates to a ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ (Article V, United States of America Constitution).” ALEC claims this resolution will curtail and eliminate the possibility of a “runaway convention.” The resolution restricts delegates to work only on those amendments authorized in their legislative instructions and calls for the immediate recall of any delegate that works on an unauthorized amendment.” This is total balderdash! Once a Convention is opened, all is fair game!

The very reason most often cited by scholars for their opposition to an Article V Convention is because the 1787 Convention set the precedent. There is absolutely no way that a new Constitutional Convention can possibly be controlled, no matter the circumstances or restrictions set down prior to the Convention.

The precedent was set in the 1787 Convention when the states convened simply to revise the Articles of Confederation, and ended up throwing out the Articles, and writing a new Constitution. The intention from the outset of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was to create a new government rather than fixing the existing one. This is also what exists today. George Soros and his leftist groups, along with the neo-conservative Trotskyites on the right, Michael Farris, Mike Levin, Goldwater Institute, I Am America, David Barton, Glenn Beck, etc. etc. ad nauseam, are all fomenting change to our Constitution through an Article V convention. What is waiting in the wings is the New States Constitution written over a period of 10 years, at a cost of $25 million, by the Ford Foundation, which eliminates everything after “We The People,” and that includes our God given, unalienable rights.

Countless authorities have stated that there is no Constitutional Convention that can be controlled. Once a Con-Con is opened, the entire document can be taken down and changed. There are no statesmen today like our founders, and the risk of opening a Convention for any reason, would result in the destruction of the last threads binding us to a representative Republic.

Here is ALEC’s handbook on the Constitutional Convention, and of note, the Church of Scientology is also an ALEC member. Link

ALEC and Common Core

In the Washington Post article of June 7, 2014, it states what we already knew, “The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.”

Gates money flowed to policy groups on the left and the right, which funded research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. None of this is new, of course. Back in the 60s, we had Mastery Learning and then Outcome Based Education, then Goals 2000, etc. ad nauseam, all of which were the same exact thing with a different name. Those fighting Communist Core have failed to realize that liberals at the Center for American Progress and so-called conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, both accepted money from Gates to promote Communist Core. Normally these groups disagree on every issue that comes down the pike, but they found common ground on Common Core, the diversion from the danger of charters, vouchers and choice, the real Trojan Horse!

ALEC and Trade Agreements

Again, in The Not-So-Smart ALEC, Bill Jasper tells about ALEC members adopting a “Resolution Supporting the Successful Negotiation of a Comprehensive and Commercially Meaningful Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).” ALEC also adopted a “Resolution Urging Congress to Pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).”

Jasper goes on to say:

“One of the most important facts, if not the most important, to know about both the TTIP and TPP is that they would, if adopted, steadily strip away our national sovereignty, allowing the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations, as well as regional tribunals and regulatory bodies created by these agreements, to override our local, state, and federal laws. This feature alone makes them very subversive, revolutionary proposals that should be opposed by every elected or appointed official who has taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This is no longer a matter of theoretical speculation; as The New American has reported previously, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the WTO agreement have amply proved this. As a result of adopting both of those agreements, NAFTA and WTO rules and rulings increasingly trump our laws.”

This is what Paul Weyrich, the Grand Poobah of the phony right, has given us with ALEC.

Weyrich was also a Member of The Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship (ICES), which amounts to a “greenEvangelicals and Catholics Together document, with many involved already having signed the ECTI or ECT II or other ecumenical ventures. Their Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, a dominionist group and effort, signed by Evangelicals, Catholics and Jews, many from the CNP, is an environmental statement of faith uniting these same groups in yet another venue.

In Part 8, we’ll discuss Weyrich’s and Morton Blackwell’s membership in The Society for the Protection of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP). Again, the name is the antithesis of TFP’s real strategy and purpose, just like many of the laws our Congress passes where the names sound so good, but the law is so unconstitutional.

Here Are Earlier Part’s  Of Kelleigh’s outstanding series.

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 6

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 5

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 4

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right – Part 3

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right Part 2

Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right, Part 1

 

 

.

 

 

Strange Article V – ConCon Connections Just Keep on Coming

By Michelle Horstman

In previous articles here and here, we have learned of many associations with the leaders of the Article V Convention of States movement which have caused concern for many. In the last few weeks, some of the main architects of this movement testified before a Texas legislative committee, including Michael Farris, Sen. Tom Coburn, Nick Dranias, Mike Stern and Roman Buhler. Just one dissenting voice was included from Pat Carlson of the Texas Eagle Forum, whose concerns were quickly dismissed. Heading this committee was Texas Representative Phil King, who also happens to be the National Chairperson for ALEC. As we have learned previously, ALEC has been instrumental in promoting an Article V Convention.

constitutionjames madison

James Madison, Father of our Constitution

By no coincidence, many of the same participants promoted the Article V to the January 2015 meeting of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), founded by well known Texas political activist and former founder of KCI, James Leininger. TPPF is part of the national State Policy Network (SPN), which has also been previously discussed in connection with those promoting the COS:

The State Policy Network’s (SPN) 2010 meeting encompassed many of these same names, including Drew Ryun, Leo Linbeck III, Nick Dranias (Compact for America’s Article V director), Eric O’Keefe, as well as representation from the Texas Public Policy Foundation (part of the SPN) founded by James Leininger. Among the presentations there was one on the Constitutional amendment process by Nick Dranias as well as information and handouts from Ned Ryun on engaging the Tea Party, with some extensive market research on the Tea Party provided. This would certainly help them to “sell” things to Tea Party groups, using the issues and language they know Tea Parties respond to.

As we continue to see ties to the same organizations and Libertarian network, one promoter we have not yet discussed is Roman Buhler. A participant in the original ConConCon convention put together by Lawrence Lessig and Mark Meckler, Mr. Buhler is also an attorney, a Washington lobbyist, on the board of the Advance Arkansas Institute (also part of the SPN) where his Madison Amendment (founded with Edwin Meese) approach is promoted. He is on the board of the “Rebuild America Campaign”, integrated with the MacPherson Investment Group, where their website slogan is “Invest in the Second American Revolution!” They link to additional projects such as American Revival. His Madison Amendment is listed as one of their projects:

It has the support of a broad spectrum of political leaders including former Comptroller General of the U.S. David M. Walker, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, McCain 2008 chair Charlie Black, former House Appropriations Chair Bob Livingston, American Conservative Union Chair Al Cardenas, David Keating, Colin Hanna, Lew Uhler, David Keene, David McIntosh, Ted Cruz, Michael Farris, and state legislators in more than 20 states.

David Norcross, former General Counsel of the RNC, Bruce Ash, Chairman of the RNC Rules Committee, John Ryder, Chairman of the RNC Redistricting Committee, and Chuck Bell, Counsel to the CA Republican Party are among the Republican Party legal experts who support the Madison Amendment.

The Madison Amendment has been endorsed by other groups including ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), the National Taxpayers Union, and the NY State Conservative Party.

In addition to investing, green projects and land acquisition, the MacPherson family of lawyers specialize in tax law, working with clients who have problems with tax evasion, offshore tax issues, “creative” ways to deal with impending foreclosures, etc. Examples of their business associations include being part of the Joe Francis legal team, when the “Girls Gone Wild” millionaire was facing IRS problems. They were also working with Maximilian Ferdinand Leopold Prinz von Anhalt of pseudo-royalty, promoting his real estate. He is also a lawyer who obtained his royal title after being “adopted” as an adult by Zsa Zsa Gabor’s husband, Prince Frédéric of Anhalt. Apparently, Zsa Zsa’s husband obtained his distinguished title the same way, in an adult adoption.

Joining Roman Buhler on the MacPherson site is an unusual assortment of people that include Melinda Pillsbury-Foster and Matthew Cross. It is worth taking note of a few of their backgrounds.

Matthew Cross
is a popular speaker and author who promotes the Golden Ratio and Da Vinci Code (aka Sacred Geometry) as the magical answer to everything including dieting, becoming a millionaire, even properly grooming your eyebrows.

Well known in Libertarian circles for decades, Ron Paul supporter Melinda Pillsbury-Foster operates multiple websites which include anti-GOP rants, online feuds with her family, green projects, and more. Some may remember her and her daughter, Morgan, in a very public scandal which ended up with the arrest of Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund and then her daughter’s subsequent recanting of the story. She maintains the “American Vision Magazine” site in conjunction with the MacPherson site.

Dominionist theology is strongly indicated on the MacPherson site, both in the inclusion and writings of “common Law” lawyer Brent Allen Winters (see below) and some of their own content. The MacPherson sites are peppered with Biblical quotes and the MacPherson site recommends books by Christian Reconstructionist Gary North, well known Ron Paul associate, son-in-law of the late (Dominionist) R. J. Rushdoony, also something that has previously been linked to COS’ Michael Farris. Other book recommendations include “That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant” by Ray Sutton. Sutton is referenced here by North in this article on Biblical resistance to civil authority and highly recommended on North’s website as part of their Christian Reconstructionist reading list.

One of the links included on their “American Vision Magazine” site (right hand column) is to common law lawyer Brent Allan Winters. Winters has been a guest on David Barton’s Wallbuilders radio show discussing “common law”. His writings include topics such as common law, the Abrahamic covenant, asset protection and Ron Paul, so we are again seeing the combination of Libertarian and Christian Reconstructionist ideas.

After learning about the focus on tax issues and dominionism, it should come as no surprise that Don MacPherson is listed on “Who’s Who in the Freedom Movement” by a sovereign citizen movement called Sovereign Education and Defense Ministries.

The strange intertwining of big money interests, Dominionism, Common Law interpretations and Libertarian networks (and pretend royalty??) continues to repeat itself as we look at the main spokespeople for an Article V Convention of States. It is time to start giving some serious thought to what the real end goal is.

NOTE: This link will take you to a photo page summing up all of the above, with photos taken with Roman Buhler, Grover Norquist, and Sheriff Mack as well as their pseudo-royal friends. For those who may not be familiar with Dominionism and its’ forms, there is a thorough article on it here.

Do You Know Anyone Who Is Going To Hell?

image

What is hell?

We’re told that it’s a place of utter anguish and torment. An eternal destination for those who turn their backs on God and reject the Ten Commandments. Imagine the most painful, the most degrading, the most unspeakable torture you can imagine, multiply it by a thousand, and it probably will not come close to the reality of hell.

Flesh-eating demons, eternal fire, the stench of sulfur…

There’s no sleeping in hell. No rest or reprieve from continuous suffering and agony. And it lasts forever.

So who goes to hell?

Those who commit murder are going to hell.

Those who lie and deceive in order to gain money or political power are going to hell. (Anyone come to mind?)

Those who practice abortion are going to hell.

Those who knowingly vote for Democratic candidates who legislate for abortion are going to hell.

Those who peddle pornography are going to hell, including most mainstream television, movies, and magazines.

Those who dress or pose immodestly, drawing others to sin, are going to hell.

Those who have sold their souls in exchange for fame and success are going to hell.

Those who legislate or resort to subterfuge in an effort to disarm the American people are going to hell.

Those who work to remove God, prayer, and Christianity from schools and society are going to hell.

Those who abuse their positions of religious or spiritual leadership with false teachings of progressivism, multiculturalism, diversity, and socialism are going to hell.

Those who teach our children and pollute their minds with false teachings of progressivism, multiculturalism, diversity, and socialism are going to hell.

Those who live off the work of others, while refusing to work themselves, are dangerously close to going to hell.

Those who promote and encourage racism through diversity, multiculturalism, and socialist policies are dangerously close to going to hell.

Those who are angry and indignant at reading this because they recognize themselves are most likely going to hell, if they don’t change.

Do you know anyone who is going to hell?

ATF Drops Proposed Ammo Ban; Agency’s Very Existence Threatened

by  for The New American Magazine

The groundswell of public and congressional opposition against the ATF’s proposed ban on 5.56 M855 rifle ammunition was so swift and strong that the agency announced on Tuesday that it was backing down. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was not only bombarded with more than 80,000 negative responses to its latest anti-Second Amendment maneuver, but it also was blasted in Congress, where 238 House members and 52 senators signed letters opposing the ammo ban. Not only that, but legislation has been introduced to abolish the agency.

ban

One of those signing the letter of opposition in the House — the one circulated by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) — was none other than the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative John Culberson (R-Texas). Culberson is a Tea Party favorite and no friend of the ATF, and his committee has jurisdiction over funding for the ATF.

Goodlatte was pleased that the ATF backed down:

After much pressure from a large, bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives, I am pleased that the Obama Administration has abandoned its attack on the Second Amendment.

“Abandoned” is far too generous a word to use to describe the ATF’s temporary backing away from what is becoming a “third rail” in American politics. “Temporary halt to continuing aggressive hostilities” might better describe the ATF’s decision to put consideration of its ban on 5.56 M855 ammunition used in the popular AR-15 rifle on hold until the clamor dies down.

The ATF has allowed itself plenty of wiggle room in declaring that it will consider various “issues” raised by complainants before moving ahead with a new “framework” to eliminate the manufacture, importation and sale of the ammunition.

In the meantime, lawmakers have been busy drafting and offering legislation designed to remove from the ATF its authority to ban rifle ammunition, or to disband the agency altogether. Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) announced in late February his “Protecting Second Amendment Rights Act” that would prohibit the ATF, or any other federal agency, from issuing or enforcing any new restrictions or prohibitions of rifle ammunition. Said Rooney at the time:

The Obama Administration’s proposal would unilaterally strip law-abiding hunters and sportsmen of their Second Amendment Rights. Congress has made its intentions clear: this ammunition is for sporting purposes and should not be restricted.

A few days later Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) offered his bill to foramally end the agency and transfer its present responsibilities either to the FBI or the DEA. Calling the ATF “largely duplicative” and “an affront to the Second Amendment”, Sensenbrenner’s bill would require ATF Director Todd Jones to be the funeral director of his own wake, submitting a plan within 180 days to wind down the agency altogether.

Those “affronts” reach far back into the history of the ATF. Most are acutely aware of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal that was designed to impugn the credibility and integrity of gun store owners along the nation’s southern border by allowing illegal weapons to be shipped to Mexican drug cartels. The plan blew up when the plot was discovered after the death of a border agent at the hands of a cartel member using a weapon enabled by the ATF. It also resulted in the first attorney general in U.S. history (Eric Holder) to be held in contempt by the Congress during the subsequent investigation..

Fewer remember the deadly confrontation that took place in northern Idaho in 1992 between Randy Weaver and the ATF resulting in the shooting death of Weaver’s wife by an ATF sniper.

This was followed a year later by the Waco Siege by agents of the ATF of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, which resulted in the killing of 76 people inside the compound when it was set on fire.

There are many who hold that neither bills offered by Rooney or Sensenbrenner go far enough. Though the Sensenbrenner bill would abolish the agengy itself, it would not, as indicated above, abolish its functions. This is an agency that needs to have not only its facade but its unconstitutional functions excised out of Washington like a cancer. As Peter Pan sang:

Never smile at a crocodile

No, you can’t get friendly with a crocodile

Don’t be taken in by his welcome grin

He’s imagining how well you’d fit within his skin

Never smile at a crocodile

Never tip your hat and stop to talk awhile

Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day

Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile

Yes this agency needs to be banned, along with dozens of other unconstitutional federal departments and agencies.

Kelleigh