Tag Archives: James Madison

Sandy Hook, conspiracy theorists, and the liberal worldview

A non-profit online magazine, The New Inquiry (TNI), cofounded by Mary Borkowski, Jennifer Bernstein, and Rachel Rosenfelt, recently published an article by someone named Emily Elizabeth Brown, trashing and deriding “conspiracy theorists” who suspect crisis actors are used in false flag incidents like Sandy Hook.

So who is Emily Elizabeth Brown?

If you click on her name, you’ll be told “Page Not Found“.

So much for TNI‘s high-minded description of itself as “a space for discussion that aspires to enrich cultural and public life by putting all available resources—both digital and material—toward the promotion and exploration of ideas.”

TNI explores ideas alright, but never mind who the authors of those ideas are. That information apparently is a secret and not “for discussion”. For that matter, there really is no “discussion” or “exploration of ideas” on TNI because the website does not allow reader comments. Given that, it is not unreasonable for us to think that TNI is really “a space” for the express “promotion,” instead of any discussion or exploration, of ideas.

Another word for “promotion” is “propaganda”.

Back to the mysterious E. E. Brown’s article (h/t Memory Hole Blog). Here are excerpts:

It is true that professional actors are sometimes hired to simulate disasters; their purpose is to help large organizations run through emergency response drills in preparation for possible catastrophic events. In conspiracy theory world, crisis actors are stans and stand-ins employed by the government to carry out affective labor during false flag operations. Websites claim that the Sandy Hook shooting, along with virtually every major tragedy involving human beings on American soil since 9/11, was a false flag drill that the government decided to take live. […]

In an interview, the political scientist Michael Barkun explained that conspiracy theorists try to make sense of a confusing world by “dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.” By imagining the evil forces as plants in the general public—the people with whom we’re supposed to sympathize—crisis actor believers erase the lines between good and evil that are usually clearly defined in conspiracy theories. There are no clear lines to separate the people who are ‘in on it’ and the people who aren’t.

An oft-repeated psychological explanation is that conspiracy theories arise as a reaction of disbelief in the face of a tragedy. It is (arguably) more reassuring to believe that a tragedy like Sandy Hook was staged by the government, instead of trying to make sense of the narrative in which somebody decided to walk into an elementary school and shoot 20 children. Then nobody would have died; there was no horrific act of violence. From this perspective, evil is not perpetrated by ordinary people, and the people the government wants us to think are evil are really harmless puppets. The crisis actor conspiracy theory exists in a worldview that is both paranoid and idealistic. Since crisis actor theorists maintain that these acts couldn’t have been carried out by people of their own accord, their view of the common man is much more positive than most people’s. To the believer, evil is primarily created by tangible, external forces. This combination of idealism and paranoia disrupts the real world in a way that other conspiracy theories don’t.

Unlike the typical  9/11 truther, who may hold that the whole event was a hoax but will keep their anger directed at the government, the crisis actor theorist directs their anger and disbelief at the victim. The government is acknowledged as the mastermind, but in the classic conspiracy trope of Us versus Them, each new tragedy brings forth new actors, and nobody is sure which of Them lives among Us.

Did you get that, “conspiracy theorists”?

If you harbor even a suspicion that the U.S. government is capable of conspiratorial machinations and false flags, the mysterious Emily Elizabeth Brown is calling you:

  • Simple-minded, because you “try to make sense of a confusing world by ‘dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.’
  • Stupid and can’t handle reality, and instead retreat into wishful thinking, because it’s “more reassuring to believe that a tragedy like Sandy Hook was staged by the government, instead of trying to make sense of the narrative in which somebody decided to walk into an elementary school and shoot 20 children.”
  • Paranoid and out-of-step with “the real world”.
  • Scapegoaters who blame the victims.


Seldom have I read so much pretentious psycho-babble in one single essay as Ms. Brown’s, not even in the worst papers written by the worst of my former students. Brown gives new meaning to the word “sophomoric.”

I — and you — can write armchair dime-store psychoanalysis as good as Ms. Brown (assuming Emily Elizabeth Brown is her real name and she is really a she who is not government’s sockpuppet). Here’s my parody of Brown:

An oft-repeated psychological explanation is that those, such as a writer named Emily Elizabeth Brown, who deride conspiracy theories arise as a reaction of what psychologists identify as denial in the face of reality. It is (arguably) more reassuring to believe that governments do not conspire to carry out false flags like the well-documented Operation Northwoods of the Kennedy Administration or the more recent Watergate conspiracy of the Nixon Administration, instead of having to shed their determined childlike innocence, which psychologists would call determined naivete or outright denial of human beings’ disposition toward deception. And so, the deniers like Emily Elizabeth Brown could remain cocooned in their comfortable worldview — a world of rainbows and unicorns where there are no conspiracies except in the minds of “conspiracy theorists,” and where human nature and government are unfailingly benign and well-intentioned, the only exceptions being those malignant “conspiracy theorists” who would dare question the integrity of persons holding and wielding great power over the little people. From this perspective, evil is not perpetrated by government — notwithstanding the record of the hundreds of millions killed by Nazi and Communist regimes in the 20th century. From this peculiar perspective held by deniers like Emily Elizabeth Brown, evil is perpetrated by those “conspiracy theorists” who would dare imagine that governments could actually plan and undertake conspiracies. To the believer, such as Emily Elizabeth Brown, evil is primarily created by powerless “conspiracy theorists” who actually dare to disrupt the believer’s fantasy of the real world.

Instead of Brown spewing her psycho-babble, it would be so much more useful if she engaged her readers with facts and reasoning, as in:

In the end, Ms. Brown’s essay is simply the latest reminder of the enormous differences in liberal vs. conservative worldviews.


As a study published in the Journal of Ideology reminds us (stripping away the authors’ loaded language), liberals view the world as generally “a hospitable place” where human nature fundamentally is benign and where most people are “warm and caring,” “nurturant” and “supportive” of others. The exceptions, of course, are those nasty, hateful conservatives. The many nice people include people in government, who can be depended on to care for and “nurture” us. All of which render liberals ideal tools– “useful idiots“– of government and the power élite.

In contrast, the conservative sees the world as “a dangerous place” because human nature is not simply benign. In such a world, the individual must be disciplined and self-reliant, instead of dependent on government. Those in government become more dangerous, the more power they accumulate — all at our expense.

So whose worldview better accords with that of America’s Founding Fathers?

Here are two clues:

“What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” -James Madison in The Federalist No. 51.

“If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, 1787.

That is why the Founders fashioned a polity based on a view of human nature as inherently selfish instead of benign, and of government as a necessary evil that must be constrained and delimited with checks and balances. For the plain fact of the matter is that there really are governments who would stoop to killing little children—and more. Just ask the millions of innocent men, women, and children whom the Nazis had slaughtered, or the hundreds of millions of innocent men, women, and children whom the Communists had killed in the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and Kampuchea.

Why would Americans, who partake of the same non-angelic human nature, be uniquely virtuous? Compared to the horrors of the Nazis and Communists, Sandy Hook, if it is a false flag, is small potatoes.


Florida man disemboweled girl friend in a monstrous rage

One of the many differences between conservatives and liberals is their worldviews — how they regard the world and human nature.

Liberals see the world and human nature as benign, except of course when it comes to conservatives, whom liberals regard as evil. That, of course, contradicts their view of human nature as benign, but then liberals are full of logical inconsistencies and contradictions.

In contrast, conservatives’ view of human nature is more consistent with that of America’s Founding Fathers, who believed human nature to be universally and inherently selfish instead of benevolent. And so, they designed a polity that recognizes and works with that selfish human nature, where government is a necessary evil that must be constrained and delimited. To quote James Madison in The Federalist No. 51:

“What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Looking at today’s news, there are many political news that warrant our attention, but one particular piece of non-political news stands out because of its sheer horror and what it says about human nature.

Before you read further, you are forewarned that what follows is graphic and horrific, beyond your worst imagination. So if you choose to continue, please don’t blame the messenger.

At 3:39 a.m. on Sunday, Sept. 20, 2015, at 3:39 a.m., a man in Sunrise, Florida, called 911 to report that his girlfriend, Maria Nemeth, was having trouble breathing and was going to die.

Sunrise is a city of 89,000 in the Miami metropolitan area.

The man, 24-year-old Fidel Lopez, and 31-year-old Nemeth had been co-habiting the apartment at 1603 Northwest 128th Drive for only about a week.

1630 Northwest 128th Dr., Sunrise, FL

Nemeth worked at the apartment complex as a leasing agent; Lopez was employed at the Florida 595 Truckstop.

When police arrived, Lopez initially told investigators that he and Nemeth had been having rough sex and that she went into the bathroom, vomited and collapsed.

But what police found at the scene went far beyond “rough sex.”

To begin, two people in a neighboring apartment reported hearing a man’s voice yelling and lots of loud noises that lasted for about two hours. Detectives said they found, in the Lopez-Nemeth apartment, a half empty bottle of 1800 Tequila and cut limes in the kitchen and signs of a physical struggle and foul play. There was a lot of blood in a bedroom closet, in the bathroom, and smeared on walls and doors. The bathroom door was ripped off its hinges. Several holes were punched in the walls; a sliding glass door was shattered. And there was “body tissue” strewn about.

Sunrise Fire-Rescue pronounced Nemeth dead at 4:02 a.m.

Maria Nemeth

Upon further questioning, Lopez told a different story. He said he became a “monster” when Nemeth twice called out her ex-husband’s name while they were having sex in the closet. Lopez said he got upset and enraged hearing someone else’s name during sex upset. He left Nemeth in the closet and started breaking things throughout the apartment, smashing the rear sliding glass door and punching holes in the walls.

Then he went back to the closet where Nemeth was lying unconscious and he started inserting things into her vagina and anus — a beer bottle, a flat iron for hair, and both of his fists. Then he inserted his arm into her vagina up to his elbow and ripped out part of her intestines.

He carried Nemeth into the bathroom and put water on her face, but she did not wake up. Lopez then washed the blood off his hands in the bathroom sink, went out on the porch to smoke a cigarette and started to panic.

After further efforts to clean the apartment, Lopez checked on Nemeth in the bathroom, found that she wasn’t breathing and called 911.

Fidel Lopez

Lopez was arrested at 2 p.m. Sunday and charged with first-degree murder. The police report lists him as 6 ft. tall, weighing 200 lbs.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement shows only one other arrest for disorderly intoxication in 2014 on Lopez’s record.

Sources: Sun Sentinel; NBC Miami

Lopez is blaming his monstrous deed on tequila, but consuming (with Nemeth) half a bottle of tequila cannot account for his barbarism.

As for Nemeth, there is a reason why, once upon a time not that long ago, our society had insisted on certain rules and etiquette particularly for females — those of courtship, the longer the better, before marriage; no pre-marital intercourse; and no pre-marital cohabitation. Those rules were meant to protect and safeguard women’s interests and well being, feminist propaganda notwithstanding.


Because men (and women) are not angels, as Maria Nemeth discovered, too late.


Operation Northwoods: A true U.S. government conspiracy for those who mock conspiracy theories

The next time someone heaps scorn on you, making fun of your suspicions about the federal government by calling you a “conspiracy theorist,” show this post to your mocker.

The term “false flag” has its origins in naval warfare where a flag other than the belligerent’s true battle flag is used as a ruse de guerre or pretext for war. As the term is used in contemporary America, a “false flag” incident is some traumatic event that is contrived and manipulated by the authorities to achieve some covert agenda. The public is given an untruthful version of the event by government and/or the media. The intended result is a “rallying around the flag” effect, wherein an inflamed and duped populace rally in support of the government’s secret agenda.

Admittedly, it is difficult for the ordinary American to think the U.S. government can stoop so low as to instigate false flags, for that would mean our government is in the hands of people so diabolical, calling them psychopaths does not begin to describe what they are. That is a frightening thought.

But it is a thought not entirely alien to our Founding Fathers who instituted a new polity based on a view of human nature as inherently self-interested instead of benevolent, and of government as a necessary evil that must be constrained and delimited. To quote James Madison in The Federalist Papers:

“What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external or internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

For his part, Thomas Jefferson, in his 1787 letter to Edward Carrington, vividly described what government would be if unchecked and unsupervised. He warned that “if once” the people “become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.

The plain fact of the matter is that there are governments and political leaders who are evil psychopaths. Just ask the millions of innocent men, women, and children whom the Nazis had slaughtered, or the hundreds of millions of innocent men, women, and children whom the Communists had killed in the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and Kampuchea. Why would Americans, who partake of the same non-angelic human nature, be uniquely virtuous? It is for that reason that the Founders established a polity with mechanisms of checks and balances to limit government.

Even with checks and balances in place, the history of the United States is riddled with actual and planned false flags and conspiracies. As an example, the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the U.S.S. Maine and U.S.S. Turner Joy reportedly were fired on without provocation by the North Vietnamese, was a false flag of the Lyndon Johnson Administration. Congress took the bait and passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that, by pre-approving the president’s military actions, gave Johnson a free ticket to wage war in Vietnam. It turned out no Vietnamese boats were even in the gulf at the time of the alleged attack.

Then there was Operation Northwoods, a false flag of such scope and devious audacity, it takes your breath away.

As reported by David Ruppe for ABC News, May 1, 2001:

In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” […]

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

Operation Northwoods was proposed in March 1962 at the beginning of John F. Kennedy’s presidency by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and approved by the head of every branch of the U.S. armed forces. Only a year before, in his farewell speech to the American people on January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had warned that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.”

The Operation Northwoods proposals called for the CIA or other government operatives to undertake acts of terrorism against U.S. military and civilian targets in Guantanamo Bay, Miami, other Florida cities, and even in Washington, D.C. Proposed acts included sinking U.S. ships, having fake Cuban MIGs attack a United States Air Force aircraft, hijacking and shooting down a chartered civil airliner, and gunning down civilians in the streets. The attacks would be blamed on the Fidel Castro government, which would be used as pretexts for a “military intervention” against Cuba.

Thankfully, President Kennedy rejected the proposals. A year and 8 months later, on November 22, 1963, he was assassinated.

The public learned about Operation Northwoods only 35 years later on November 18, 1997. That day, the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board declassified Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba, a top secret collection of draft memoranda outlining the false flag proposals, written by the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Below are screenshots I took from the Appendix of a memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the Department of Defense, dated March 9, 1962, in Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba. The Appendix contains the nauseating details of the proposed false flag.

Operation Northwoods memo1Operation Northwoods memo2Operation Northwoods memo3Operation Northwoods memo4Operation Northwoods memo5Operation Northwoods memo6Operation Northwoods memo7Operation Northwoods memo8Operation Northwoods memo9Operation Northwoods memo10

Please ask yourself whether anything has really changed for us to be assured that our government has not and will not undertake false flags like Operation Northwoods or worse. On the contrary, with the establishment media acting more as a Ministry of Truth than the feisty check on political power intended by the Founding Fathers, I fully expect our government to be even more devious and skillful. (See “CIA spreads disinformation to news agencies“)

If Sandy Hook was a false flag, it is small potatoes compared to Operation Northwoods.

See also:


Former intelligence officer Robert Steele: Most terrorist incidents in U.S. were false flags

James Madison quote

A false flag, as the term is used in contemporary parlance, is a traumatic public event of mass casualties which bears the marks of falsity, in part or in whole, as the public have been told by government and media. The objective of false flags is always to rally the public in an outburst of sympathy and support for the government and its agenda, e.g., gun control, opposition to an identified enemy, etc.

Robert David Steele, 62, is a former CIA clandestine services case officer and a 20-year Marine Corps Infantry Intelligence officer. A candidate for the Reform Party’s presidential nomination in 2012, Steele is known for his promotion of open source intelligence (OSINT). In the intelligence community, OSINT refers to overt, publicly available sources (as opposed to covert or clandestine sources), and is not related to open-source software or public intelligence. Here’s his website: www.robertdavidsteele.com.

Robert David Steele

The Keiser Report is a financial news and analysis show hosted by Max Keiser on RT UK and the RT network. On the show’s episode 731 on March 13, 2015, Steele made a startling assertion that most terrorists are false flag terrorists created by the world’s intelligence services, and that every single terrorist incident in the U.S. has been a false flag. The interview with Steele begins at the 12:23 mark of the video:

Here’s a transcript of the interview beginning at the 15:08 mark:

Keiser: “There are several terror events in Europe by Europeans recently. Now, each one of the bad guys is already known to security services, a good example being here in the UK, they had somebody who was on MI5 radar, he went off to join ISIS and he became Jihadi John. So your thoughts: Is this because we have too much data or too many people on the terror watch list, or there’s not enough real intelligence? What’s going on here?”

Steele: “Well, Max, this may be too much for you guys, but let me give you the bottom line as I see it…. Most terrorists are false flag terrorists…created by our own security services. Now I have no direct access in England, but I will tell you that here in the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum. As far as Jihadi John, the best guess that I can give you is that this is funded by Saudi Arabia, trained by CIA. This destruction of ancient artifacts and so on, that’s a covert action influence operation; that’s not something they would normally do. This is, in one word, largely theater.

Note: In an October 2014 interview with Alex Jones of Infowars, Steel specifically identified Sandy Hook and Boston Bombing as false flags.

Keiser then asks if a solution to all this “skullduggery” is open source, i.e., taking all the data and make it public, and mentions Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as examples. Steele replies that Assange “has” (i.e., takes) “no sides.” At the 17:47 mark, Steele said:

“[Edward] Snowden is a good thing, but right now all indications are that he’s a CIA op that was authorized by Obama to take Assange (?) down a notch, and the reason the State Department canceled his [Snowden’s] passport while he was en route to Russia was precisely to throw him in front of the Russians as a dangle.”

Steele is the founder and publisher of Public Intelligence Blog. An advocate of open source and the New Alternative Media of citizen bloggers, Steele once said:

“You are the Paul Reveres and Patrick Henrys of our generation. Bottom-up horizontal-connection is key. Sharing at all levels, not top down control. Public intelligence and influence is about to take off. We’re about to bury rule by secrecy. Civil affairs is the focal point….

If you bloggers self-organize and attach yourselves like leeches to specific issues, corporations, organization, challenges, whatever, you will be the intelligence minutemen of this century. The power is in your hands.

There aren’t enough guns to kill us all, and Halliburton can’t build jails fast enough to keep us down…. I think we’re at a turning point. We’re at the very beginning of a historic tidal shift in power, restoring the Constitution.”

So, be not afraid! Take heart! Stand firm!


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.


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

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.

A Day of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is one of the most beloved holidays in America. But did you know that unlike other secular holidays like Labor Day or the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving is a national holiday that is explicitly religious in nature?

In 1789, in his first year in office, President George Washington called for a day of Thanksgiving because —

“it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.”

In 1815, President James Madison issued a proclamation for “a day of thanksgiving and of devout acknowledgments to Almighty God for His great goodness.” After Madison, however, Thanksgiving reverted to a regional celebration in New England for 48 years.

In 1863, magazine editor Sarah Josepha Hale petitioned the Lincoln administration that “a day of Thanksgiving now needs National recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become permanently, an American custom and institution.” President Abraham Lincoln called on Americans that year to “fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore if, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.”

As a nation of faith, Americans have set aside this day to thank God for the many blessings He has bestowed.

We of the Fellowship of the Minds want to take this occasion to thank all our readers and especially our faithful regular commenters who contribute so much to this site with their trenchant observation, insight, righteous outrage, and wit.

God bless you, and may God bless America,