Yesterday on your behalf, I testified at Cheyenne’s city council on the record and against an egregious scheme that will place power in a small group of politically appointed bureaucrats.
This so-called Human Rights Advisory Council measure was led by (Phony Republican) Cheyenne city councilman Dicky Shanor.
The push for these shady local councils – is modeled directly after the similarly named “United Nations Human Rights Advisory Council” – and they first started popping up in San Francisco and neighboring California communities during the mid sixties.
Today these United Nations styled Human Rights Councils span America from coast to coast. And wouldn’t you know, they all have one thing in common…the United Nation’s demand for the confiscation of guns from American citizens as a “human right” for safety.
These councils use a variation of the Delphi-Method to lobby the public as well as influence state government. By using specially picked political appointees that appear as everyday concerned citizens, they push to advance support on a host of progressive ideals, including gun control.
Cleverly this is how politicians can push an agenda — then hide behind a citizen panel, when they ask for your vote at reelection time.
Too bad for them, we’re on to them!
In Wyoming, it’s always the usual suspects like Dicky Shanor pushing the progressive envelope. These Liberal-Progressives work within the confines of the Republican party because they just can’t get elected as Democrats.
Republicans like Shanor, and a Party that refuses to hold their own accountable — is the very reason we must be so critical of the recent statewide Republican fund-raising campaign dubbed – “Grow The Party.”
It should be noted that Shanor was the prior Chairman of the Laramie Republican Party.
And it’s just as it seems, Republican ‘Elitists’ like Shanor quickly find the revolving door into Wyoming government.
It’s flat out sickening that councilman Shanor used the usual tactics to make it difficult for the public to participate in the proceedings by having the hearing at 12 noon, and to schedule the hearing in the smallest room possible with people literally lining the hallway.
All while 20 feet away, the much larger Cheyenne city council chambers were empty. You just can’t make this stuff up!
Besides being a lawyer and city council member, phony Republican Shanor also works as the Chief of Staff of another Phony Republican, Jillian Balow, Wyoming’s Superintendent of Education who testified in both the House and Senate committees against the Repeal of Gun Free Zones in Wyoming.
Like the old saying goes, “Birds of a Feather flock Together.”
Jillian Balow and Dicky Shanor
So yesterday, it came at no surprise, that Dicky Shanor was leading the charge to implement an unscrupulous Marxist government scheme.
The good news is…
On it’s initial introduction we made sure Shanor’s move met hard scrutiny from gun owners.
But here’s the warning…
While the measure was temporarily tabled in yesterdays sub-committee—->Despite the opposition, Shanor stated, in open committee, that he will rework the language and bring it before the council again.
This is why I will be keeping a close eye on every move of Cheyenne’s city council as they act to repackage and reintroduce Shanor’s United Nations scheme.
Remember, as I am at the ready to aggressively push back at Wyoming’s progressive anti-gun politicians—->where ever they may be. This will continue to be possible only because of your financial support.
If you are a regularly reader, but have not become an active supporter – please consider chipping in $10 or $20, so WyGO can remain the strong voice for gun rights in Wyoming.
Wyoming Gun Owners
The more that some public officials overstep their authority, the more that voters — and others — are stepping up and saying, “Stop!”
The 2014 congressional elections represented a collective shout by voters to politicians and bureaucrats to back off. Way off.
Consider the case of Arnold Abbott, a 90-year old involved in feeding the needy at the Sanctuary Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This “scofflaw” is a serial free food dispenser to the poor who come to his church for meals.
Abbott was arrested by the Ft. Lauderdale police for his supposed threat to the peace of society. During the arrest, an officer shouted to Arnold, “Drop that plate right now!”
You read that right. Arnold was not told to “Drop that gun right now,” but rather “to drop that plate!” Onlookers were outraged and shouted: “Shame on you!” to the officers.
Arnold has beaten the city before in court, and expects to see them in court soon on their new law making his charitable activities a criminal offense.
Ideally, the Broward County Sheriff would inform the Ft. Lauderdale police that they would be arrested if they attempted to arrest Mr. Arnold. So far, that has not happened.
In other counties, however, sheriffs have interposed themselves between their people and the threat of rogue power from wayward officials.
America’s history illustrates this on a grand scale. Our War for Independence quickly grew from militia encounters to armed resistance directed and financed (however fecklessly) by the Continental Congress.
In the last century, veterans returning from World War II found that their city of Athens, Tennessee was controlled by a very corrupt machine. When the August, 1946 Democrat primary election (the only election in town) was literally stolen (the police walked off with the ballot boxes), the armed people of McMinn County rose up and rousted the corrupt regime. Clean elections then gave a victory to the reform slate.
The Second Amendment was intended to protect the people’s personal arms so they would be able to resist tyranny should an American government ever go off the rails of the Constitution and rule tyrannically. The Battle of Athens was an applied case of what the Second Amendment is intended to make possible.
In Elkhart County, Indiana, the people have elected a Constitutional Sheriff who has had occasion to interpose himself between the Food and Drug Administration and a county dairy farmer. The FDA was threatening to confiscate the farmer’s dairy equipment because they don’t like raw milk — even though they can point to no problems. Elkhart Sheriff Brad Rogers threatened to arrest any FDA agents making further visits to the farmer’s property. End of the FDA threat.
The voters of Elkhart County indicated their strong support for Sheriff Rogers’ interposition. He was just reelected with 75 percent of the vote.
Rogers’ warning to the FDA has kept the peace in Elkhart County. Let us hope the time will come soon when Broward County will have a sheriff who understands his role as a keeper of the peace against the Ft. Lauderdale food police.
Larry Pratt is the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, a grassroots gun lobby with a million members and activists.
The list of companies that have stopped selling firearms and ammunition to law enforcement agencies in states that are restricting the Second Amendment has more than doubled since Wednesday and is more than five times larger than just one week ago. There are 44 companies on our list, with more being added as we receive notification. Here are the additions since Wednesday:
Steve Adelmann of Citizen Arms shared the following from his company’s statement, made the day after New York changed its laws:
”Due to legal, ethical and moral concerns, Citizen Arms offers only those custom firearms that are legal for all lawful citizens of a given state to possess, regardless of law enforcement status. LE personnel living in states where citizens must have restrictive features will only receive like product support from Citizen Arms. We’re very appreciative of the sacrifices made by the law enforcement community but we’re even more appreciative of the right guaranteed to all law-abiding US citizens by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution: A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
On February 20th, as our story was hitting the web, Ronnie Barrett, the Chairman and CEO of Barrett Firearms posted his company’s position statement on their Facebook page:
Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty
Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies.
Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under th…e Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”.
By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.
In the course of world history there have been officials that strip inalienable rights from the people that were given to all by our Creator. Most of these officials inevitably come to trial, some do not.
Intentionally violating constitutional rights by officials that have sworn to uphold them should have severe prison sentences.
With the clear vision of horrible events in history repeating itself, all manufacturers of firearms or related equipment remaining in partnership with such violators should have a respectable fear of being found with the guilty on their day of trial.
During this era of assault on liberty, Barrett will remain steadfast in our efforts to serve law-abiding citizens of all fifty states, and stands together with you in the struggles we will fight and win.
Jeffrey Norton of Norton Firearms not only sends a message about the Second Amendment, but also reminds folks that our rights come to us from “our US Constitution and our Creator.”
Norton Firearms, Inc. is a strong defender of the US Constitution, not only the 2nd amendment. We believe that a government that restricts it Citizens from executing their Constitutional Rights is no longer a government for the people or by the people. It is our policy not to sell our products or services to any organization that tries to diminish the rights given to us by our US Constitution and our Creator. If you are a government agency with a policy of restricting our Constitutional Rights we ask that you take our tax dollars and spend it somewhere else. I am sure there is some profiteering communist foreign company that will be glad to take our dollars for their gain. We will only sell to law abiding, Citizens and those agencies that truly support and will defend The US Constitution.
Doug Prince of Evolution Weaponry told TheBlaze, “Evolution Weaponry is proud to say you can add us to that list.”
I am a US Army veteran. I received a medical discharge due to combat related injuries after 6 years of service. I am a strong believer in American veterans, the US Constitution and individual liberty. My service to this country is among my greatest accomplishments in my life to this point and I carry what I have learned from that into every endeavor I undertake.
Arizona’s Kiss Tactical’s Facebook page also carries a story about denying a California police officer’s request to purchase an AR-15.
On Saturday I refused to sell a AR-15 rifle to a police officer from California. He came into my shop and wanted to buy his duty gun in AZ because the same gun in his home state would cost him more. I told him that I would not sell him the gun even though he had his department letter saying he was able to buy it. I told him that if the gun was not legal for law abiding men and women in CA, I would not sell it to him. after he told me that “civilians don’t need them type of guns” I asked to leave my shop. as he stomped out mad.
Doublestar Corporation (which includes J&T Distributing, DoubleStar Corp., Ace Limited, and the DoubleStar Training Academy) will also be unavailable to law enforcement and government agencies in states suppressing citizen’s rights.
Effective immediately, the J&T Family of Companies will be joining other manufacturers and distributors by ceasing sales of regulated items in states that have altered the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.
There are also a host of smaller outlets taking a stand.
Witness the recent news from Old Grouch’s Military Surplus in North Carolina:
In support of our customers in the state of New York, effective today we are cancelling all orders to any state or municipal government agency customers in the New York and will accept no more. While we can’t stop the trampling of rights that is occurring there, we certainly can make sure we don’t assist in it in any way going forward.
We hope to keep this list as accurate as possible and will update it with news and additions as we receive them and can confirm their accuracy. Please forward any information directly to email@example.com.
You can also follow the efforts to encourage other companies to join this group here.
Some things never change in this world, and dominance seems to be one of them. It’s the old elementary school thing really. At least a variation of it. That said, I am guilty as charged when it comes to jumping all over actions that I see as traitorous to the cause.
After all, I was among the first to call out The National Rifle Association for doing, among other things; Supporting The Gun Control Act of 1968. Supporting the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act, and it’s lifetime ban on firearms possession and ownership for less than felony convictions. Both of these have direct impacts upon the freedom and liberty of all Americans, even if you are not a firearm enthusiast. Ex Post Facto Law..? King James would be proud to be sure. King George would also be quite pleased at restricting our ability to say no to him without losing our heads in the process. An assault on any part or portion of the Bill of Rights, is an assault on the entire body of it. What follows is from one of the most well thought out writers on the internet. Think about it folks, and by folks I do mean the NRA, SAF, NAGR, and so on.
Maybe we (the gun community as a whole) are victims of our own success. In the last several years we have survived a Democratic controlled Congress along with one of the most liberal presidents in history, and successfully defeated the first real anti-gun legislation we’ve seen at the federal level in 20 years. In the last 12 months we’ve seen sheriffs across the nation come out in support of gun rights and we’ve seen two state lawmakers recalled and a third resign over their stance on gun rights in Colorado.
Sure, there have been some setbacks in some states such as Connecticut and New York, but all in all, we’ve moved forward as a community in the last couple of years. It also seems we’ve become a community divided during that time. Over the last 2-3 months I’ve noticed a severe amount of infighting in the gun community. Now, when I say “gun community,” I’m talking about gun owners in general, gun bloggers, print publications, gun companies, accessory companies, trainers, activists, gun rights groups and grassroots organizers (sorry for whoever I just forgot).
Now I know that gun manufacturers are competing against each other and those of us in the publishing world are technically competing against each other as well. However, I think that we’re all forgetting (perhaps due to the complacency from the positive issues mentioned above), that we’re all on the same side of a lifestyle that is constantly under attack by people who would love nothing more than to take it ALL away.
Recently, I’ve seen several disturbing things (and I’m not going to name names here, which would only add fuel to several fires) including a prominent gun blog call out a print publication over a product review of a controversial new pistol, only to have another prominent gun blog call out the first gun for their calling out of the print publication… does that even make sense? Sure, all of that controversy probably means more pageviews and readers all around, but what damage does it do to the community? You force readers to choose a side and show the anti-gun community a weakness.
I’ve seen the leader of a large, national organization who hasn’t been on the scene very long bash the leader of a well established gun rights group who has literally done more for gun rights in the courts than any other organization. That second organization then had to publicly respond to the comments from the first organization. How does that look to outsiders? Instead of questioning each other’s commitment to the cause how about having a civil discussion on the phone or via email about the differences in your organization’s strategies and thought process?
Read the whole thing here at GUNS SAVE LIVES
Since the other post got fouled up somehow here is a repeat.
Agenda drives the left, in all things. The more dead kids there are, the more fodder for the leftest agenda. Alinsky would be proud. The more that we learn about the mass killers the more we find out how they are drugged, and supporters of leftest ideologies. I for one am going to start referring to the entire lot of them as murderers. Because that is what they are.
When others talk of full blown revolution I will no longer speak about temperance. I’m not, after all, that kind of a Christian. More power to the people of America as envisioned by those that established this great nation!
A bunch of kid killers support the Free Fire Zones. Let us be diligent in reminding them about that at every turn!
The obamanites and other Tory’s would simply crap their pants if all would have passed!
First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;” and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: “After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to ——, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than ——, nor more than ——, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto.”
Thirdly. That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: “But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives.”
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldiers shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Sixthly. That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:
But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to —— dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.
Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.
In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.
Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.
The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.
Ninthly. That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.
The battle continues, and now moves to the Senate
Someone once said that the only thing anyone ever learns from history is that no one ever learns anything from history.
Straight from bumbling the shut down, the House leadership yesterday, by a voice vote, slammed through a straight ten-year reauthorization of the poorly drafted 1988 plastic gun ban.
At least, argue House Republicans, this “straight authorization” of a bad law will prohibit New York Democrat Chuck Schumer from using the reauthorization as a vehicle to enact new, more extensive gun control.
But the House leadership has now handed Schumer a legislative vehicle for passing his gun control. This means he and Harry Reid could choose to take their ban on 3-D printer guns -– which, by the way, would also ban many metal gun manufacturers -– and send it back to the House.
Just hours after the House reauthorized the anti-gun law, Schumer held a press event in support of expanding the plastic gun ban.
If they do this, then Boehner and his leadership team will once again be swimming in a river of pain –- inflicted by a liberal media that finally sees an opportunity for passing its much-desired gun control agenda.
So the first thing we’re doing is to organize a Senate filibuster of any Schumer effort to pass and/or expand the House bill.
Given that the Senate is currently bogged down in a fight over the defense authorization legislation, we may be able to make it very difficult for Schumer to use the House-passed bill as a vehicle for new gun control.
So please stay tuned. We thank you for all your activism up to this point. But just realize that this battle is not over yet.
GOA IN THE MEDIA
Meanwhile, GOA Director of Communications Erich Pratt authored the Opposing View this morning in USA Today.
Among other things, Pratt argued that the plastic gun ban is an unconstitutional infringement of our liberties that is not only ineffective, but could eventually be expanded by an anti-gun administration to ban even more guns.
But what about the issue of smuggling guns onto planes?
Pratt says that renewing a ban on plastic firearms will “not stop criminals from making them or stealing them,” any more than Chicago’s gun restrictions have been effective in stopping shootings there.
Not only that, says Pratt, “smuggling guns onto planes will still be against the law, with or without a plastic gun ban.” And airport X-ray machines will still be able to detect them.
Bottom line, says Pratt, Congress solved the problem of terrorists carrying weapons onto planes after 9/11 — not through additional gun bans, but by “allowing pilots to use guns to defend themselves and their passengers.”
Again, you can read the entire column here.
While there are many Second Amendment support groups the most well known, and reviled by those that suffer from the mental illness hoplophobia really does very little for the day to day supporter of the Bill of Rights. That being the National Rifle Association. Please don’t get me wrong about the NRA. They are possibly the very first safety organization of any type in history, and it is doubtless that the firearm safety programs started by them have saved countless lives, as well as reduced severe injuries all around the world, and have served the vital function of providing a working template for virtually all safety programs.
Feared by many politicians, the NRA has clout. However, when it comes to politics? The NRA is a true failure. They refuse to fight the tough fights. Only getting into those in which the probability of success is high. Indeed, the refusal to actually get involved in the dirty work led to the formation of Gun Owners of America as well as others. Wyoming Gun Owners, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and others like them get into the trenches and fight. Also, The National Association for Gun Rights has been getting results that have been quite impressive as of late. Please watch the video for more about NAGR, and donate what you can to each of the groups mentioned above.
Probably going to turn this into a series. Should have done that a long time ago.
Well, good evening, my good friends, and welcome to another segment of Musings After Midnight. I hope all of you are well, which is more than I can say for myself. Another bout with inflammation of the eyes has beset me of late, stemming from an underlying inflammatory condition that can effect multiple body systems. This, of course, carries with it some rather peculiar difficulties that must be worked around.
But over all, the situation is improving with treatment, although progress is rather slow.
Summer is now in its final days, and here in the South we have been abundantly blessed with one of the mildest seasons I ever remember. In fact, I never remember a summer that has been this unseasonably mild. Rarely has the temperature gone above 90 degrees, which for this area is highly unusual. We have also been the recipients of an amazing amount of rainfall, totally obliterating a drought that has beset us for several years and shattering rainfall records that have stood in place for nearly a century.
If all summers could be like this in this area, I would have no complaints about the weather, although my heart does go out to those who have been hit with flooding. I could do without this much rain, but the temperatures have been wonderful.
And now, down to business.
Things have gotten demonstrably worse politically since we last met together. Obama not only continues to ignore the Constitution but has doubled down in his disdain for its provisions, particularly its clear limitations on executive power. He has made a complete mess out of foreign policy, pushing through and exploiting a precarious situation in Egypt to get a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and now sides with that terrorist organization against the military that ousted him and seeks to maintain stability in a nation that is precariously close to disintegrating into Islamic extremism along the lines of Iran, Libya, and Yemen.
On the home front, Obama defied the Constitutional mandate for presidents to follow the law by granting a delay to the implementation of the employer mandate in his infamous and unconstitutional ObamaCare program. The law he and his cronies wrote expressly fixes the date of implementation. Yet by executive fiat he decides that he will delay the implementation of the employer mandate while refusing to grant the same delay to the individual mandate. This is a clear violation of the law, a violation of the Constitution, and is a high crime/misdemeanor.
In the midst of all of this, Congress does nothing. We already know that Senate Democrats, who control that chamber, are worthless. But now we know that the Republican leadership in the House — Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy — are just as worthless.
As I have stated before in previous Musings After Midnight, the ballot box has completely failed us at this point. So-called “Tea Party” candidates turn out to be complete duds once they get in office, except for Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.
But one major development that has occurred since the last time we talked is that at least one major conservative thinker has concluded the same thing we have, that the electoral process in America today has failed. The difference is that he has a more orderly Constitutional process for correcting it.
First, I want to consider the proposal and then offer a critique.
Mark Levin, radio talk show host, attorney, and former member of the Reagan Administration, has just released a new book that shot up to number one on the Amazon best seller list called, The Liberty Amendments. Already the book has created quite a stir in the conservative/libertarian world. Some have immediately slammed the book and its proposals while others have enthusiastically embraced them.
Levin’s basic premise is that the Constitution itself has provided a remedy for predicaments exactly like ours when the ballot box has failed us. And make no mistake. Levin agrees that the ballot box has failed. He has lambasted the president, the Congress, and the Supreme Court for their systemic failures to uphold the very Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend. And he also debunks the notion that merely electing more conservatives to Congress will correct the problem, or that electing a conservative president with a conservative Congress will correct it.
As we have seen over the past 12 years, any Tom, Dick, and Harry can sound and act like a conservative to get elected or even to get appointed to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush and a Republican Congress (2001-2006) are prime examples. Can you say, Patriot Act? And John Roberts at the Supreme Court is perhaps the joke of the centuries.
So, what are citizens to do in order to stop this brazen tyranny and get the nation back on course? If another election or two are not guaranteed to do the trick, then what will?
Levin proposes a list of amendments to the Constitution that he calls “the liberty amendments.” And how does he propose to get these amendments approved? By using the provisions set forth by the Constitution itself in Article V.
Article V is referred to as “the amendment process.” Some erroneously refer to the amendment process remedy as a “Constitutional Convention,” the very name of which is enough to strike fear in the hearts of patriots who fear that having such a convention will possibly result in a runaway mob that approves measures that obliterate sacred protections of hard fought liberties.
Detractors of Levin’s book are already going into hysterics over the proposal. Some of that hysteria was evident today on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show not only by the host but by his guests.
But Levin correctly observes that Article V is erroneously viewed as a “Constitutional Convention” that can either discard portions or the entirety of the Constitution. The provision of Article V is more correctly referred to as “an amendment convention,” or “a convention to add amendments to the Constitution.” Such a process is bound by certain time honored limitations. A convention of this sort cannot vote on whether or not to abide by the Constitution. That is off the table and has already been decided. The agenda of the convention is set before the meeting commences. In fact, the convention is called only to consider and decide on proposed amendments, despite Cornell School of Law’s contention that this is up for debate and that the issue has never been decided.
The process itself, however, would seem to work against the possibility that such a convention would go rogue. For example, a specific proposal to amend the Constitution must originate with the states, precisely, two thirds of the state legislatures are required to call such a convention, and any proposal coming out of it eventually must be approved by three fourths of the state legislatures or three fourths of state amendment conventions (yes, a state can call an Article V convention).
Here is the precise wording of Article V of the Constitution:
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.
Cornell provides this interesting tidbit of annotation to Article V:
The Convention Alternative.—Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is sur[p.900]rounded by a lengthy list of questions.21When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration.22 This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.23 Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates.24 The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court’s legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time.25 Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two–thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.
Regardless of what one thinks about the prospects of such a convention or what may or may not happen therein, Levin’s book, in my opinion, is essential reading for anyone interested in liberty and in putting a stop to the growing tyranny and its concomitant encroachments on the liberties of the people. The book is sure to spawn a lively debate, even among conservatives and libertarians, a healthy exercise for a nation in which a sizable portion of the population has been conditioned to think they have absolutely no power or recourse at their disposal to fight the dictates of a growing oppressive, monolithic surveillance state.
Now, on to the critique.
I have great respect for Mark Levin. He understands the liberty movement, is sympathetic to its goals and objectives, and speaks our language. But he has invited critique with the belief that his is by no means the final word and that the nation needs to have a lively and healthy ongoing discussion concerning these issues.
It is in this spirit that I offer the following observations.
In the first place, having a convention to propose amendments is no guarantee that any of them actually will be followed even if they gain the approval of the necessary number of state legislatures. Granted, merely having the discussion, the debate, and the convention will enhance the chances that such amendments will be enforced. The attention of the entire nation will be focused on the issues addressed in those amendments, and thus, there will be a natural tendency to gauge the extent to which their provisions are adequately implemented.
However, that alone is not enough to guarantee adherence by Congress, the Courts, the president, or even the states. The lawlessness that ravages our land at the present hour provides ample proof that an alarming number of citizens, states, and elected officials do not care what the law says. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has proposed that the state of California officially be designated as a “sanctuary state” for illegal aliens, in defiance of federal law. Barack Obama himself has refused to obey several direct court orders. Congress has failed to hold him accountable.
It is very difficult to imagine any of these people suddenly deciding to obey Constitutional directives just because an Article V convention was held and the states approved. Regardless of how popular Levin’s proposed amendments may be in some states and with some elected representatives, this in no way guarantees that the current crop of lawless despots will leave or change their ways. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, and others will continue to be the very same criminal vermin they have always been. Barack Obama will not stop lying or defying the Constitution, or ignoring court orders when they are inconvenient to him.
Further, it is also very hard to believe that a majority of voters in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or Illinois will change the way they vote. They are going to continue to send to Congress the very same tyrants they have for at least 10 to 20 years. Term limits will help, for sure. But the removal of one entrenched tyrant career politician will only result in his/her being replaced by another tyrant. Massachusetts got rid of Ted Kennedy when the senator died of cancer. But they replaced him with a Republican whose only sensible act was voting against ObamaCare, and now they have turned around and placed a kooky, loony bird liberal in that Senate seat, who is even worse than Kennedy or Brown.
In short, if the Constitution is not now being followed, then how on earth will several more amendments to it guarantee that they will be followed?
Lawless, elected thugs will ignore the new amendments as thoroughly as they do the current document.
America has not followed its Constitution in over 100 years. Most conservatives/libertarians believe that the Constitution was discarded as soon as the Income Tax was approved, along with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. While I agree that both of these acts are deplorable and unconstitutional, I take it back even further. As soon as Abraham Lincoln, as great as he was, made it illegal for a state to withdraw from the union, the Constitution was on its death bed. The Framers were able to secure the approval of the Constitution only upon the promise to many patriots that the authority of states would never be usurped and that they could leave at any time. Lincoln broke that sacred promise although his heart was in the right place with regard to slavery.
Not long afterward the nation saw the advent of the Progressive Movement, which viewed the Constitution as a great roadblock to its agenda. And when one takes an objective look at the most well known progressives at the time, one is immediately struck by the fact that in one accord they believed the Constitution posed a problem for them. Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst. So was FDR. And in reality, so was Teddy Roosevelt.
Wilson stated openly while he was a college professor that the Constitution was too restrictive in its approach to government. Years later before he was elected president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said the very same thing…in 1926. Both Wilson and FDR advocated putting the Constitution on the back burner, ignoring it, or outright defying it, in order to pursue an agenda that would result in a powerful, controlling centralized government-industrial-military complex — one of the very things our Framers wanted to avoid. Thus, by the time we went to war with Germany in the 1940s, there was actually little philosophical-economic difference between the United States and Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union. The only difference was a matter of degrees.
Lyndon Baines Johnson solidified and expanded what FDR and Wilson started with his Great Society. And here we’ve been ever since attempting to figure out how we lost so many of our freedoms, when the answer has been right in front of our eyes all along, and in fact, was set in motion by our very citizens in the voting booth.
Bill Buckley, one of my mentors, was famous for having said that he would rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than those who have been elected to Congress. At one time I agreed with him. That day is long gone. I no longer trust my fellow citizens in the voting booth. They invariably make boneheaded decisions that culminate in more and more tyranny for me. So, why would I want to trust you with my liberties?
Frankly, it sickens me to no end to have to say these things, but it is the truth. We have been betrayed not only by our courts, our presidents, and our elected representatives in Congress, but by our fellow citizens as well. Promise them a $200 subsidy for national healthcare, a government apartment on the cheap, and a Social Security check, and they will vote for a modern equivalent of Chairman Mao.
Don’t get me wrong. I have long advocated for political solutions to our current quagmire even while we make preparation for more convincing solutions. To give up on that entirely would be a travesty and a big mistake. Thus, I hope Levin is right and that eventually we can get what he has proposed. I will do my part to work toward it. But I am not willing to pin all my hopes on that, for the reasons listed above.
In a very real sense, Levin is showing some naivete in his proposal. If we could trust the electorate as we once could, then yes, he would be 100 percent correct. If we were not facing the current dire straits brought on by evil men in high places, then yes, his treatise would be a most welcomed and refreshing solution. But reality tells me something entirely different, something that Levin may not be able or willing to accept. The enemy has not only gotten through the gate but he has become entrenched in command central. And most Americans are simply not informed enough to recognize him as the enemy.
The moral and ethical decay that has afflicted, infested, and infected modern American society makes it well night impossible for normal remedies to work effectively. Evil interlopers intent to do harm will say and do anything to get elected or to become entrenched in places of power in the unconstitutional Fourth Branch of government, the vast, nameless bureaucracy that controls most everything behind the scenes along with their allies and financiers in shadowy, duplicitous organizations such as the Center for American Progress, Tides Foundation, the organizations formerly known as ACORN (which, by the way, are still there), and at least several hundred others. These groups know no bounds, no limitations, no restrictions ethically, morally, politically. Their only focus is on the agenda, the end game, to change America from a Constitutional Republic to something else that is a strange combination of Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or more appropriately, collectivism. The individual person does not count. Persons are entirely expendable as long as the end game is achieved. Thus, you and I have no rights. We are mere pawns in a deadly game designed to turn us from citizens into subjects or slaves to the state.
Thus, a convention designed to approve commendable amendments to the Constitution, as noble an idea as it may be, will not change anything as long as we do not address the deadly cancer that is growing in the very center of the nation. And in this case, only radical surgery will do the trick.
This means Resist, Defy, Evade, Smuggle, and Sabotage.
The kind of enemy we fight is not reasonable, nice, respectful, or fair. Our only recourse, thus, is to thwart their march into tyranny at every hand, and then, when we get the chance, rout them out by sheer force. Force the criminals in public office to pay the price for their crimes. Place them on trial. Imprison them. And if they murdered the innocent in their pursuit of the “progressive vision,” implement the death penalty if Congress decides this is a fair punishment for their murderous actions.
Sounds rather harsh, doesn’t it? Well, would you rather be a slave with no rights? Would you prefer that government goons kill thousands if not millions of citizens, like Stalin and Chairman Mao? Would you rather political dissidents be thrown into the ovens?
If not, your choices are limited. Either get rid of the monsters that would do these things to you and me, or get set for a bloodbath initiated by a government that is just as oppressive and dangerous as anything we have ever seen.
It really is as simple as that.