Tag Archives: James Madison

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,

~Eowyn

Amerika: A nation of know-nothing potheads

sheeple

This past Wednesday, Sept. 17, was Constitution Day — the 227th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution.

It’s a sad day for our Founding Fathers because after they had labored and sacrificed to establish a government of checks and balances and the rule of law, for the people, by the people, and of the people, only 36% or about one of every three Americans can name the three branches of government — executive, legislative, judicial — which the Constitution had created.

Reid Wilson reports for The Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2014, on more findings from the new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center:

  • Only 38% of Americans know the Republican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, while 17% think Democrats are still in charge. Worse still, fewer Americans –a drop of 17% — now know the GOP controls the House than back in 2011, right after Republicans had reclaimed control of the lower chamber.
  • An identical number, 38%, knows Democrats run the Senate, while 20% believe Republicans control the upper chamber.
  • Only 27% know it takes a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.
  • 15% of Americans correctly identified the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts; but 27% know Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol.
  • Only 13% know the Constitution was signed in 1787.

There are groups, like the Civics Education Initiative (CEI), which are are pushing to include more civics education in high schools by requiring students to pass the same citizenship test that immigrants do when they come to America. CEI will introduce legislation in seven states that would require passage of the citizenship test before graduating.

Meanwhile, Kate Rogers reports for CNBC, Sept. 18, 2014, that 1 in 10 Americans are showing up to work high on pot.

A new survey conducted by Mashable.com in partnership with SurveyMonkey found 9.7% of Americans fessed up to smoking marijuana before showing up to the office. Worse still, nearly 81% said they scored their cannabis illegally.

james Madison

Think you can do better than the 36% of Americans who can’t name the three branches of the U.S. government? Take the American Civics Literacy Quiz!

After you’ve taken the quiz, compare your score to our elected officials by going to “How Elected Officials Scored on American Civics Literacy.”

~Eowyn

Constitutional Convention Call Redux – Part 3

Several states are now passing calls for a Constitutional Convention again. The Compact for America (a nasty bunch) is pushing for a new Constitutional Convention in Dallas this July 4, 2013.

We are in extreme danger of losing our entire Constitution.

To warn us, a new member of FOTM’s team, Kelleigh, has written a sobering well-researched 4-part series about the dangers inherent in a Constitutional Convention, and about the specific dangers of the nice-sounding but oh-so-deceptive Balanced Budget Amendment.

Below is Part 3 of Kelleigh’s “Constitutional Convention Call Redux.” Go here for Part 1, and here for Part 2. Please spread the word: Tweet, email, and link this on your Facebook page!

See also Kelleigh’s outstanding 7-part series on Agenda 21, depopulation, and euthanasia, “Killing Me Softly.”

~Eowyn

Odysseus and the SirensOdysseus and the Sirens, by John William Waterhouse (1891)

CONSTITUTION CONVENTION CALL REDUX

Part 3

by Kelleigh Nelson

James Madison himself, father of the Constitution, warned against convening a second constitutional convention. When he learned that New York and Virginia were actively calling for an Article V convention in 1788, just months after ratification of the Constitution, he was horrified. He counseled: “If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress…. It would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides … [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts … might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric….”

There are numerous organizations promoting a Constitutional Convention under the guise of a Balanced Budget Amendment.  Tom DeWeese wrote about the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation.  He covered this in his articles, “Powerful Forces Calling for a Constitutional Convention,” and “Constitutional Convention Cannot be Controlled.

Back in 1995, model resolutions for the Conference of States (COS) came from the National Council of State Legislators (NCSL), the organization that indoctrinates liberal (mostly Democratic) legislators, just as American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) does the conservatives (Republicans). The NCSL is presently backing the internet sales tax, and the rotten E-Verify.

ALEC passed a resolution supporting the COS resolution, and Republicans joined the fray. Thankfully, the 1995 attempt was defeated, again because patriots were alert. (As  an aside, the Governor of New Mexico was then Gary Johnson, Libertarian Candidate for President in the 2012 race, and he backed the COS resolution.)

The NCSL (National Conference of State Legislators), NCM (National Conference of Mayors), NGA (National Governors Association) just to name a few – are adjuncts of the Council of State Governments (CSG).  The original COS was billed as a plan by Governors Michael Leavitt of Utah and Ben Nelson of Kansas, but it became clear from a 1987 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) and (CSG) paper that in reality the Governors were merely delivery boys for the scheme led by the Rockefeller founded Council of State Governments.  The United States ACIR was terminated in September, 1996, but nearly every state has its own ACIR.

Paul Weyrich’s ALEC, (American Legislative Exchange Council) backed the COS.  ALEC boasts nearly 3,000 conservative legislative and corporate members, and has been strongly pushing a Con-Con for decades.

The CSG is a private, international organization funded originally with Rockefeller money through the Spelman Fund (John D. Rockefeller’s wife, Laura Spelman) (see CSG’s Book of the States Volume I – 1935) and currently receives millions of dollars from states’ dues – our tax dollars. As early as 1935, the CSG had already called for gun control and the creation of 10 REGIONS for America. Today, America has 10 Federal Regions from which the federal government controls our money and therefore our states, counties, townships and municipalities. Regionalism is Communism!  The money from the block grants coming into the states is fed into the Federal Regional Planning Commissions, HUD, HEW, EPA, Departments of Labor, Commerce, DOE, etc., which in turn doles it out to our local governments in return for their “obedience” in passing whatever laws and ordinances the federal planners dictate (think Agenda 21, Smart Growth). If they do not comply, money is withheld until they do.

Here we are, eighteen years later, and they’re still at it. In this present assault on our Constitution the roles are reversed: ALEC wrote the model resolution; and the NCSL is solidly behind the scheme, as indicated by the letter that was sent to every Governor, Senate President, and House Speaker in this country by Florida Senator Jeff Atwater, from the NCSL. So, let’s take a closer look at ALEC.

American Legislative Exchange Council

The subject of ALEC deserves a three-part article alone, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll just give an overview.  ALEC was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Grand Poobah of the secretive Council for National Policy, founder of Free Congress Foundation, and the Heritage Foundation.  ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It’s not just a lobby or front group, ALEC is one of the most powerful unelected councils in the country. Link

Corporations hand to state legislators their “wish lists” of legislation to benefit their bottom lines. The membership of ALEC is 98% corporate and the corporate membership is the one that funds almost all of ALEC’s operations. They have bought their way into the process by which corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. ALEC’s legislative leaders are responsible for getting the bills introduced and passed. They introduce and carry the bills in their statehouses as their own brilliant ideas. As an example, the immigration bill, SB1070, was written by ALEC and carried by Russell Pearce, word for word, to Arizona. Private prison corporations had a huge part in ALEC’s crafting of SB1070.

Richard Mellon Scaife has allegedly funded ALEC to the tune of more than 7 million dollars. One must remember that Scaife funds both sides of the aisle and is connected to Rockefeller (Chase Mellon Bank). Scaife also had a full page ad in the WSJ stating why it was so important for taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood and what they do for American women. The danger in the ALEC organization is that its leadership apparently wants to rewrite our Constitution, and they claim a membership of 2,500 plus of our 7,500 legislators. Members of ALEC even include the Church of Scientology, which has spoken at ALEC meetings.

Sometime in the mid-1990s, the Church of Scientology became one of ALEC’s underwriters, for the apparent purpose of interacting with state lawmakers on mental health-care issues. Here’s an excerpt from a 1998 fundraising letter written by Bruce Wiseman, the president of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, (CCHR) a highly controversial anti-psychiatry front-group of the Church of Scientology. Wiseman writes. “ALEC is a national organization made up of legislators from every state as well as some federal legislators who meet and draft model legislation for every state. The return for that has been enormous! CCHR has worked its way up the conditions at ALEC and recently got an article published by ALEC in opposition to mandated mental-health parity, which went to key state legislators who deal with health issues in their respective states. In addition, the ALEC membership has opened the door to meeting numerous legislators and other opinion leaders from around the country.”

The legislators never disclose that corporations wrote and vetted these bills along with fellow politicians behind closed doors at ALEC meetings. So, everyone who is a member of ALEC is influencing not only state bills, but likely most federal bills as well, written by corporations with vested interests — along with lobbyists and state representatives.

ALEC is a long time supporter of a Constitutional Convention. A 43 page handbook, written by Robert G. Natelson, entitled: Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States,” was provided to their mostly-republican members, along with model legislation to carry back to their states. The booklet is full of spins, lies, and misdirection.  It claims the states must exercise control as given to them by the founders, that they must move quickly, that state legislatures will have complete control over the process, and will answer to the state legislatures they represent.  This is far from the truth.  As we discussed and made clear in Part 1 of this article, there is no provision in Article V empowering state legislators to choose the delegates to a Constitutional Convention or to “limit” the scope of a Con-Con. There are no rules, no regulations, and certainly no instructions.

Henry Hazlitt

hazlittHenry Hazlitt, American economist, (1894-1993), was the former economic advisor to pro-Constitutional Convention, National Taxpayer’s Union (NTU), headed by James Dale Davidson.  Davidson’s NTU was instrumental in promoting a Con-Con in the early 80s and he claimed he gave $100,000 every year to the cause.  Hazlitt was a renowned conservative, and he wrote a book which he republished in 1974 called, “A New Constitution Now.”  This book makes the argument for replacing America’s presidential system of government with a parliamentary one resembling Great Britain’s.  I thought we fought a revolutionary war to escape that form of government!

Back in 1992, when Ross Perot came on the scene, he was gung-ho for a Con-Con.  He stated emphatically that we needed a parliamentary government (same as ALEC’s founder, Paul Weyrich) and bragged that “his people” could get the remaining states needed for a Con-Con “in their sleep.”  Thank God, we found out and it was stopped.

Hazlitt’s book is extremely dangerous inasmuch as Hazlitt states things like, “an amendment could be proposed that would strike out everything after “We the people,” and that, of course, includes the Bill of Rights. He was suggesting that everything after “We the people” on down be scrapped and rewritten, which is amazing, as this document has provided more human dignity and freedom for more people than any other in recorded history.

Other suggested improvements by Hazlitt include making it easier to amend our Constitution by adopting the Swiss and Australian procedure.  Another would be to restrict Presidents to a single term. A third would be to abolish the office of Vice President.  A fourth would reconstitute the Supreme Court, with each governor appointing a justice with the approval of his state legislature.  (Think about that with these neo-conservative Trotskyite governors we have on the right, like Tennessee’s Haslam, and the full-blown communists on the left, like New York’s Cuomo.)  The neo-conservative Trotskyite rightwing loved Hazlitt and still quote him.

+++

In the final Part 4 of this series, we’ll discuss Rexford Guy Tugwell, and the Newstates Constitution. Tugwell was a man far ahead of his time.  He deplored private property rights, declared our 1787 Constitution to be outmoded and archaic, and would have loved United Nations Agenda 21/Smart Growth/Sustainability.

In fact, in 1938 Tugwell was appointed as the first director of the New York City Planning Commission. New York’s reformist mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, created the commission as part of a city charter reform aimed at reducing corruption and inefficiency. The Planning Commission had relatively limited powers – all actions needed approval from the legislative Board of Estimate. Rexford Tugwell tried to assert the commission’s power. He tried to retroactively enforce nonconforming land uses, despite a lack of public or legal support. His commission sought to establish public housing at moderate densities, yet repeatedly approved FHA requests for greater density. Robert Moses killed Tugwell’s proposed fifty-year master plan with a fiery public denouncement of its open space protections.  Link

Tugwell’s book, The Emerging Constitution,” makes it clear where he stood.  He states on page 593, “The other considerable change (to the Constitution) is the consolidation of states into fewer, and it is hoped, more effective regional groupings, thus at last organizing as one system rather than a confused fifty.”

Also on page 593 is this statement about the proposed Newstates constitution, “It will be noticed that the general emphasis on the protection of individuals from the exercise of governmental powers has been supplemented with a list of responsibilities.”

Constitutional Convention Call Redux – Part 1

Several states are now passing calls for a Constitutional Convention again. The Compact for America (a nasty bunch) is pushing for a new Constitutional Convention in Dallas this July 4, 2013.

We are in extreme danger of losing our entire Constitution.

To warn us, Kelleigh Nelson has written a sobering 3-part series about the dangers inherent in a Constitutional Convention, and about the specific dangers of the nice-sounding but oh-so-deceptive Balanced Budget Amendment.

Below is Part 1 of Kelleigh’s “Constitutional Convention Call Redux.” Here’s Part 2. Please spread the word: Tweet, email, and link this on your Facebook page!

See also Kelleigh’s outstanding 7-part series on Agenda 21 and euthanasia, “Killing Me Softly.”

~Eowyn

Then: 1787 Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention

Philadelphia Convention 1787

Now: 2012 Democratic National Convention

2012 DNC

You really want this bunch to rewrite our Constitution?

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION CALL REDUX

Part 1

By Kelleigh Nelson

“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitution Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congressmen might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey it.” -Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger

“Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second.” -James Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth President of the United States

“All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.” James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787

We could lose our God given rights, secured by the 1787 Constitution if a new call for a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) is successful.  The Constitution is about the specific powers we delegated to the federal government.  Our rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution.  The sole purpose of civil government is to secure those rights.  Knowing what is waiting in the wings, if we lose this Constitution, all will finally be lost, and the war for our freedoms would be over.  If you never read another one of my articles, I beg you to read and disseminate this one.  Then contact your state legislators and find out where your state stands regarding a call for a Constitutional Convention. 

Thirty Years Ago

In the early 1980’s, we did not have home computers, lap tops, or IPADs; neither did we have unlimited long-distance telephone rates.  We only had our Fax machines and our telephones. Yet, the nation’s patriotic groups, and the Kitchen Militia gals, worked tirelessly to stave off a call for another Constitutional Convention.  We knew the dangers, we knew the precedents, and we knew what was waiting in the wings to replace the Constitution given to us by honorable men.  We knew that if we lost our Constitution and Bill of Rights, that the great experiment in freedom and liberty would be lost forever.

We worked to inform people of what a new Constitutional Convention would bode for America.  Thirty-two of the necessary 34 states needed to call a new Con-Con had petitioned the Congress for the purpose of proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA).

(An amendment to the Constitution is first proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. This is the way we’ve ratified amendments since the Bill of Rights. It is then sent to the states for their votes. If 38 of the states ratify the amendment, it will be added to the Constitution. The danger in the ratifying process is that Congress decides whether it will be ratified by the legislators of 38 states, or by special Ratifying Conventions. As well, the legislators who called for the Convention can be totally circumvented – having no voice in the outcome, thus opening a Pandora’s Box and powerless to close it.)

Thirteen states finally recalled their calls: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and in 2010, Tennessee. Link  Now some are again calling for a Con-Con.

Our Constitution is still a barrier to the globalists, and they hate this document.  The elite have always wanted to destroy it because, as Patrick Henry said, The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”  The One Worlders have a new constitution waiting in the wings which will grant us privileges by the state.  The distinctive characteristic of our Constitution is that it created a federal government of only limited, defined, and enumerated powers!  We must focus on the limited powers we delegated instead of our “rights.”  Rights pre-date and pre-exist the Constitution.  Only with this conception of rights can we avoid having black-robed federal judges determine the scope and extent of our rights.

We have elected officials in local, state, and federal governments who have no problem trampling our Constitution.  We have heard the cries from the right and left for a BBA via an Article V Constitutional Convention. The Constitution LIMITS what the federal government is allowed to spend with taxpayer dollars. It is so limited that the funding of outrageous items today would fill an encyclopedia. Our Constitution does not authorize foreign aid, or museums about rock stars, or studying of the blue lizard, or Chinese prostitutes, or unconstitutional wars, etc., etc., ad nauseam.  We have a majority of Republicans in congress today…so why in heaven’s name aren’t they balancing the budget now without an amendment?

Of course, unknown to most of the electorate, the BBA would actually legalize the unconstitutional spending the Congress has been doing for decades.  See Publius Huldah’s most important article “Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a Hoax and a Deadly Trap.”

Forty-five Republican Senators and the majority of Republican Representatives absolutely love the BBA and desire its passage, including Rand Paul. They talk openly about it to the dumbed down electorate, never telling us that it would LEGALIZE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPENDING. This would give Congress a free hand to spend whatever they want to on any frivolous item that floats past their desks. The Constitution limits CONGRESS alone to the spending of money!

The BBA will usher in a totalitarian dictatorship. Pursuant to the unconstitutional Budget Act of 1921, the President has been preparing the budget. Since the Budget Act is unconstitutional, the President’s preparation of the budget has been likewise unconstitutional. Section 3 of the BBA would legalize what is now unconstitutional and unlawful, but Section 3 of the BBA does more than merely legalize the unlawful. It actually transfers the Constitutional power to make the appropriations and to determine taxes to the President. Congress will simply become a rubber stamp.   Senate bill from 112th Congress. House bill from 113th Congress.

Former Senator Jim DeMint, and Senator Mike Lee, (neo-cons) are determined to jam this down our throats along with Congressional representatives like Michelle Bachmann. Don’t tell me they don’t understand what they’re doing, because all of them love the out-of-control spending and the BBA would legalize it. In the July 7, 2011, WSJ, Jim DeMint joined with that bastion of conservative politics, Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe, to push the BBA, stating it is The Only Reform That Will Restrain Spending. Liars and thieves!

The 1787 Convention

In 1787, delegates gathered in a Conference of States (not a Constitutional Convention) to discuss problems with interstate commerce. They were given strict instructions by the Congress that they were to meet only for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.” Eleven of the twelve states present, specifically instructed their delegates to discuss nothing more than the commerce issue.

Once convened, the delegates of the twelve states, formed a “committee of the whole” (chaired by the elected George Washington, President of the Conference), took a vote, and declared the Articles of Confederation null and void!  For five months they debated behind closed doors and emerged with an entirely new form of government.  Our 1787 Constitution was the result.  

The Conference of the States had become a runaway Constitutional Convention! It happened then, and we are certain it will happen again if we don’t stop the process. The precedent was set.

An Article V Constitutional Convention today would undoubtedly mutate the same way the 1787 “Conference of States” mutated into a Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention makes its own rules, cannot be limited, and could indeed throw out the entire structure, including the narrowly defined, limited and enumerated powers granted the federal government, just like the framers threw out the Articles of Confederation in 1787!  Remember, the Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it CANNOT do!

About 50 of the 55 delegates at the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians, so the Constitution they wrote was rooted squarely in the Word of God and the Ten Commandments. It maximized individual liberty while at the same time limiting government power.   There are absolutely no Constitutional guarantees that the legal precedent of the first Convention will not be repeated by the second one, the result being a new Constitution. However, you can rest assured that this one will not be from Godly Christian men. Back in the early 80s, many of the states that called for a one-item Convention like the BBA, wrote limiting language into their calls, (thinking they could indeed control the agenda, and stating they would secede from the Convention if it overstepped the bounds). Nevertheless, the precedent of the first Convention is the basis for American jurisprudence.  A Con-Con is not just the amendment that is at issue. The entire document is taken down from its pedestal and is put on the table and people go to work on it, tearing it apart.  There are NO RULES!

As well, the Unbridled Power of the delegates to a Con-Con has been acknowledged several times by various State Supreme Courts, and a letter from former U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger confirms the danger.  In his letter Justice Burger said:

” . . . there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. . . After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

James Madison is the “Father” of our Constitution.  At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.”  (Judicial, Legislative, Executive)

There were delegates from twelve of the thirteen states in attendance at the original 1787 Convention.  Rhode Island did not send delegates. The most notable statesmen present were Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton, all of whom signed the final Constitution.  Ultimately, 39 of the original 55 delegates ended up signing, but it is likely that none were completely satisfied. Their views were summed up by Benjamin Franklin, who said,

“There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. … I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. … It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies…”

The names of several prominent Founders are notable for their not having participated in the Constitutional Convention. Thomas Jefferson was abroad, serving as the minister to France (nonetheless, Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, would describe the delegates approvingly as a gathering of “demi-gods”). Jefferson later stated that had he been present at the Convention, he would have urged term limits for politicians.  John Adams was in Britain, serving as minister to that country, but he wrote home to encourage the delegates. Patrick Henry refused to participate because he “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy.” Also absent were John Hancock and Samuel Adams. Many of the states’ older and more experienced leaders may have simply been too busy with the local affairs of their states to attend the Convention, which had originally been planned to strengthen the existing Articles of Confederation, not to write a Constitution for a completely new national government.

Now, think about the delegates and leaders of the 1787 Constitutional Convention.  They were men of letters, with integrity, honor, and love of liberty and freedom. The Founders of America were patriots, visionaries, revolutionaries, world shakers, and nation builders. They joined together to protect America’s citizens from an over reaching, all powerful, centralized federal government.  Although imperfect men, they were statesmen who understood government needed to be chained to protect the people.

Can you imagine the delegates we would get from the Congress today? It would be the same Congress which gave us a $16 trillion plus debt, which won’t stand up to Obama, that passed the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and all the other egregious bills they’ve signed on to.  Can you see the delight of the globalists in destroying the Constitution that binds them?  Can you imagine today’s Washington D.C. leaders deciding how to change our Constitution?  I tremble at the very thought.

Who is behind the push for a Con-Con call today?  What is the Compact for America? Who is ALEC? Who was Henry Hazlitt and Rexford Tugwell?  What new Constitution is waiting in the wings, written by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations?  We will answer these questions in subsequent articles.

Finally, a special thank you to my friend, retired attorney, Publius Huldah, for her help with this article.

America is a tyranny of the dependent majority

Central to our Founding Fathers’ conception of self-government is self-reliance. Freedom without responsibility is mere license.

The Founders never intended or even envisioned that the day would come when the American Republic has degenerated into a country where more than half (53% or 165 million of the total U.S. population of 311.6 million) of the population are dependent on the government.

Given the selfishness inherent in human nature, the dependents keep voting in their narrow self-interest while the equally self-interested pandering politicians keep promising and ensuring the “largesse” to continue. All at the expense of the 49% — and decreasing by the day — of adult Americans who actually pay federal income taxes.

Anyone with half a brain knows that this is unsustainable. All the warning signs are there:

  • $16 trillion national debt (ballooning to $20 trillion by 2016);
  • Social Security Disability running out of cash in 4 years, by 2016;
  • followed by the main Social Security program two years later;
  • as well as Medicare and Medicaid.

Bill Wilson, the President of Americans for Limited Government, is the latest voice sounding the alarm. But as with Cassandra of Greek mythology, no one is listening.

165 Million Americans Are Dependents of the State: Is Tyranny Next?

By Bill Wilson – Forbes.com – Aug. 15, 2012:

Is America descending into a dependency state, where the majority uses its voting power to demand government services from taxpayers?

New research from Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reveals that this reality may already be here, with more than 107 million Americans on some form of means-tested government welfare.

Add to that 46 million seniors collecting Medicare (subtracting out about 10 million on Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and other senior-eligible programs already included in Sessions’ means-tested chart) and 22 million government employees at the federal, state, and local level — and suddenly, over 165 million people, a clear majority of the 308 million Americans counted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, are at least partially dependents of the state.

Since President Obama took office in 2009, eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, the earned income tax credit, the making work pay tax credit, and unemployment benefits has increased by roughly 10 million. To add insult to injury, Obama then unilaterally dismantled the work requirements that were the heart of the 1990’s welfare reform via an arbitrary executive order.

But it’s even worse than that. In fact, most voting-age Americans do not pay income taxes — approximately 50.6 percent.

That includes 53.91 million Americans who pay nothing in income taxes, and another 64.7 million who get refunds in excess of what was owed.  That’s 118.61 million out of 234.6 million Americans 18 years and older, based on data compiled by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the U.S. Census Bureau.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect against such an outcome. The Founders did not want a democracy, which tends to be problematic because of the failure of minority rights to be defended against an arrogant or authoritarian majority. So, instead, the Founders created a republic.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison wrote that in democracies, “governments are too unstable, [and] the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

Madison prescribed “curing the mischiefs of faction”, including a tyranny of the majority, by “controlling its effects”. Madison warned that “a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”

So, the “majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.” But how?

Instead of everyone gathering on a hill and voting on laws, the scheme of representation was established, wherein we elect our representatives to make decisions. Also, having a large, geographically wide republic and constitutional limits on the powers of government, complete with two branches of legislature, was supposed to prevent a tyranny of the majority from ever appearing.

Or at least, as Madison put it, such factors would “make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens”.

But has America reached a tipping point where it will no longer work?

Today, a majority of Americans have a direct financial interest in voting for representatives to ensure they keep collecting their benefits and salaries, making sure others are taxed to pay for it all.

Additionally, policies enacted since the financial crisis of 2008 have guaranteed that, for example, virtually every single new home mortgage is being purchased or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the student loan industry has been nationalized. It is almost impossible today to find credit that is not allocated by the government, implying that even more than 165 million are in some way dependent — whether they realize it or not.

All of which leads to the question of whether the U.S. today is in danger of becoming a tyranny of the majority.

To say the least, it would appear on the surface that Madison’s concerns about an oppressive majority were well-founded. But whether his “cure” was effective may well be determined by the outcome of the 2012 election.

H/t ZeroHedge

~Eowyn

Enough with the U.S. military being police of the world!

America’s national debt is now 102% of GDP and at $15.904 trillion, is fast approaching $16 trillion with each passing second (see U.S. Debt Clock).

In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Defense accounted for 18.74% of federal government expenditure. That means the government spends nearly $2 out of every $10 on the military.

This morning comes news that the U.S. Marine Corps is creating law enforcement battalions.

Yes, you read correctly. Not military defense, but LAW ENFORCEMENT.

Julie Watson reports for the AP, July 22, 2012:

The Marine Corps has created its first law enforcement battalions – a lean, specialized force of military police officers that it hopes can quickly deploy worldwide to help investigate crimes from terrorism to drug trafficking and train fledgling security forces in allied nations.

The Corps activated three such battalions last month. Each is made up of roughly 500 military police officers and dozens of dogs. … Marines have been increasingly taking on the role of a street cop along with their combat duties over the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they have been in charge of training both countries’ security forces. Those skills now can be used as a permanent part of the Marine Corps, Durham said.

… The battalions will be capable of helping control civil disturbances, handling detainees, carrying out forensic work, and using biometrics to identify suspects. Durham said they could assist local authorities in allied countries in securing crime scenes and building cases so criminals end up behind bars and not back out on the streets because of mistakes. …

Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches law of war at Georgetown University, said Marines have already been doing this kind of work for years but now that it has been made more formal by the creation of the battalions, it could raise a host of questions, especially on the use of force. … “Am I a Marine or a cop? Can I be both?” he said. “Cops apply human rights law and Marines apply the law of war. Now that it’s blended, it makes it tougher for the young men and women who have to make the decision as to when deadly force is not appropriate.”

In his 2004 important and insightful essay for The Future of Freedom Foundation,The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to Militarism,”  Jacob G. Hornberger reminds us:

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “no Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Obviously, the Third Amendment has little relevance today. But what is relevant for us today is the mindset that underlay the passage of that amendment — a mindset of deep antipathy toward militarism and standing armies. Our ancestors’ fierce opposition to a powerful military force was consistent with their overall philosophy that guided the formation of the Constitution and the passage of the Bill of Rights. …

Historically, governments had misused standing armies in two ways, both of which ultimately subjected the citizenry to tyranny. One was to engage in faraway wars, which inevitably entailed enormous expenditures, enabling the government to place ever-increasing tax burdens on the people. Such wars also inevitably entailed “patriotic” calls for blind allegiance to the government so long as the war was being waged. Consider, for example, the immortal words of James Madison, who is commonly referred to as “the father of the Constitution”:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

The second way to use a standing army to impose tyranny was the direct one — the use of troops to establish order and obedience among the citizenry. Ordinarily, if a government has no huge standing army at its disposal, many people will choose to violate immoral laws that always come with a tyrannical regime; that is, they engage in what is commonly known as “civil disobedience” — the disobedience to immoral laws. But as the Chinese people discovered at Tiananmen Square, when the government has a standing army to enforce its will, civil disobedience becomes much more problematic.

Consider again the words of Madison:

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

The idea is that governments use their armies to produce the enemies, then scare the people with cries that the barbarians are at the gates, and then claim that war is necessary to put down the barbarians. With all this, needless to say, comes increased governmental power over the people.

Sound familiar?

~Eowyn

Happy Thanksgiving! / Open Thread below

Thanksgiving is one of the most beloved holidays in America. But 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 our Fellowship with their trenchant observation, insight, righteous outrage, and wit.

Despite the corruption, incompetence, and decay of our government, we are grateful to be living in still the greatest country in the world. That is precisely why the Fellowship of Minds was founded nearly 2 years ago — as a small but fierce Voice of Opposition to the systematic and deliberate destruction of our beloved America.

Above all, we are grateful to the magnificent, loving, and most awesome Triune God for everything He has graced us with:

Food on our tables; a roof over our heads; clothing for our bodies; family and friends; productive work; soldiers who secure our freedom with their lives; the courage of our convictions; and the gift of life.

God bless you, and may God bless America,

~Eowyn and all the writers of the Fellowship

P.S. I know things are pretty bad these days, but please share with us just one thing you are thankful for. Also we would like your funniest/worst Thanksgiving story.

Happy Thanksgiving and God Bless to all.

-Steve