The Bait And Switch Con To Destroy Our Constitution

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthrights of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God, it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the people’s freedom by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. – James Madison

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson

Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it. – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775

The Convention of States (COS) proponents have continuously lied to their constituents, most of whom have never opened the US Constitution and read Article V. The push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch con-game of all time.

Amendments to the Constitution

COS adherents tell us we can open the US Constitution and add amendments to rein in the powers and jurisdictions of the federal government, but if elected officials won’t obey the Constitution now, why would they obey changes to the document unless the changes benefited them?!

Article V unequivocally provides only two procedures for amendments to the Constitution, to wit: Method 1. Congressional Enactment when “two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,” OR Method 2. Congressional Convening of a Convention in response to “the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states.” Furthermore, even the choice between the two declared modes of state ratification of any resulting amendments therefrom is specifically left to “be proposed by the Congress.”

How much semantical distortion of the English language; or “bouncing off the wall of legalizing” does it take to create a “Convention of States” out of Article V? Nowhere in Article V does it say that a convention can be called, opened, or convened and bypass Congress, which COS promoters claim they can do. Read it for yourselves:

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (Emphasis mine)

Why can’t we add amendments to the Constitution as we have for 235 years rather than risking opening the Constitution to violent partisans and nefarious individuals?

1787 Convention Precedent

The COS promoters have also stated that they could “control” the convention. Still, the precedent for total lack of control was set in 1787 when the Founding Fathers realized the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation could not be fixed under the current form of government and thus, started anew. Throwing out our 1787 Constitution, written by true statesmen, and substituting “privileges” rather than individual freedoms is the goal of those behind the Convention of States and their irreputable monetary benefactors.

When the Articles of Confederation were written, there was a widespread fear of a strong central government among Americans whose loyalties were to their own state rather than any national government. During the American Revolution, the Articles purposely kept the federal government as weak as possible and the states as independent as possible. But there were severe weaknesses, and these weaknesses were discussed at the 1786 Annapolis Convention. Thus, a new document was needed, but states’ rights were strongly included in the ten unalienable Bill of Rights.

Convention Advocates and Financiers

Mark Meckler is funded with millions from Koch Brothers organizations, American Legislative Exchange Council, and other malicious groups and organizations. Rob Natelson, formerly of the Goldwater Institute and now with the Independence Institute, Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, and Patrick Henry College are also defenders of the egregious Convention of States. Yet, they’re afraid to debate those constitutional scholars who know the truth of their intentions.

Their real purpose in opening another Constitutional Convention is to impose a new constitution of their own making. One of the early rewritten constitutions was published in Rex Tugwell’s 1974 book, The Emerging Constitution. It was a project over ten years and $25 million by Fund for the Republic (the Ford Foundation). The proposed “New States Constitution” is a frightening combination of government privileges rather than individual freedoms and a culmination of the final objectives of regional governance conspirators.

In addition to the proposed new Constitutions already out there, the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project has released three proposed new constitutions to replace our existing Constitution. You can read the proposed new constitutions here. These proposed constitutions would transfer massive new powers to the federal government, legalize the unconstitutional acts that have been going on for over 100 years, and bring about a long list of additional horrors.

Robert George and the Conservative Constitution

One look at the “Conservative Constitution” headed up by Robert George should give anyone the willies. Robert George, a globalist Council on Foreign Relations member, who poses as a conservative Christian while serving UNESCO and the CFR’s agenda, has found common ground with the purveyors who wish the destruction of our 1787 Constitution.

Obviously, COS board member Robert George would like to delete the entire second amendment. Here’s what he has written that negates the original meaning of the founder’s “teeth” of our Bill of Rights.

The modified “Second Amendment” clarifies what we understand to be the best original understanding. It provides, “Neither the states nor the United States shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that states, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.” (Emphasis mine)

So, who will determine those who are dangerous to themselves or others? Unelected councils as in Soviet Russia? The same unelected councils as our local county health departments? Those unelected councils determined healthy people should be locked up, schools should be closed, and everyone should don face diapers, breathing in their own exhaled bacteria, depriving their brains of oxygen, and doing damage to themselves. Adopted because other unelected councils told them what to do…NIH, CDC, FDA, AMA, etc… the snakeholders! Our elected officials willingly complied.

Robert George’s revision of our unalienable second amendment is a prescription for the annihilation of our God-given right to defend ourselves, and we know exactly who the targets will be.

America’s Gun Owners

Will Dabbs MD writes for Firearms News, and in a recent article, he said, “American civilian shooters bought as many firearms in the month of January 2021 as are maintained in the entire US Army inventory. In a nation of 328 million people, we own more than 400 million guns, and forty million of those firearms were sold in 2020. There’s just no putting that back in the box. As a people, we are irrevocably armed to the teeth. No amount of legislated social engineering will ever make a dent. That means the bad guys in the United States will be well-armed until the sun burns out.”

Dr. Dabbs continues, “While the left wishes the United States was Sweden or Norway, we pragmatists appreciate that in the face of such a sordid state, we need to assume responsibility for our security. In the Information Age, this means we avail ourselves of the proper tools and train to proficiency.”

Remember the summer of 2020, when Antifa thugs pulled Adam Haner out of his pickup truck in Portland during a BLM protest march and beat him unconscious? His crime was trying to help another person who the same mob had beaten.

As Dr. Dabbs says, “I don’t know about you guys, but that’s just not happening to me.”

“We must avoid this type of chaos at all costs, but should the exigencies of life place you in that sort of place, nothing screams, ‘Don’t screw with me, dude!’ like a handy takedown AR.”

Conclusion

Too many evil entities wish to destroy the finest document of individual God-given freedoms ever created by man. Frederick Douglass said, “Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the constitution is a Glorious Liberty Document!” He was right.

In 1788, James Madison wrote to G.I. Turberville when asked how he felt if another General Convention should be called.

He wrote, “You wish to know my sentiments on the project of (an Article V) Convention as suggested by New York. I shall give them to you with great frankness. 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 appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans [sic] on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much-heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”

My friend, Joanna Martin, a true scholar of our 1787 Constitution and the Federalist papers, has written a much more in-depth article exposing the harmful effects of allowing another constitutional convention. Please take the time to study her work.

The war to save our 1787 Constitution continues. Please join the battle to restore our God-given liberties and freedoms.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.