Help! Google has locked me out of my Gmail account.
They claim they need to verify my identity – and claim they need a cell phone number in order to verify my identity.
I know perfectly well why they want cell phone numbers from those who use Gmail: it is so they can track our physical movements. You are surely aware that the way the federal Department of “Justice” located those who attended the rally on January 6, was by cell phone numbers of the attendees provided to them by Google, etc. Cell phones are, in reality, tracking devices. Be very careful to whom you give your cell phone number.
For that reason, I do not have a cell phone – and if you gave me a cell phone and free service, I’d smash the cell phone with a hammer and take it to the dump.
Google is censoring me by preventing me from sending emails. Obviously, they don’t want me communicating with State Legislators to warn them of the dangers of an Article V Convention and how the Convention lobby is not telling them the Truth – and they don’t want me communicating with my contacts on my address lists.
Please use for my email my NEW Proton Account: JoannaMartinJD@proton.me
Thank you!
Joanna Martin
Share this:
Why James Madison trembled at the prospect of an Article V Convention
By Joanna Martin, J.D.
The following outline shows the absurdity of the Convention pushers’ arguments; their false claims & assurances about the Convention process; their misrepresentations of Court Opinions; their misrepresentations of whom they really serve, and their faked “popular support”.
Since everything they tell you is false; the question arises, “What’s their real agenda?”
I’ll show you. And then you will see why James Madison “trembled” at the prospect of an Article V Convention.1
I.
The absurdity of the Convention pushers’ arguments
1. They claim we need a Convention so we can get Amendments to “limit the power & jurisdiction of the federal government”.
But our Constitution already limits the federal government to a few enumerated powers!
Everyone ignores it. The federal government was able to usurp hundreds of powers not granted by our Constitution because state & local governments, hospitals, businesses, universities, farmers, individual citizens, & everybody else collaborated with the usurpations by taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.
Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing” – it needs to be read & obeyed: downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers! And stop taking the money!
2. Their proposed Amendments increase the powers of the federal government by granting new powers, legalizing powers already usurped, or stripping States of their existing powers. E.g.,
· HERE are the Nightmare Amendments from “COS’s” first mock convention.
· To see how six of Mark Levin’s “liberty amendments” do the opposite of what he claims, go HERE. [His other amendments are just as bad.]
· To see how the “regulation freedom amendment” increases federal power and makes gun control by the federal government constitutional, see The “Regulation Freedom” Amendment and Daniel Webster.
No Amendment can make people obey the Constitution: When the federal government usurps powers not granted – and everybody accepts federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs, all of them are ignoring the existing constitutional limits on federal power.
State Legislators who are concerned about federal spending and federal control should stop taking federal money to implement unconstitutional federal programs in their State!
II.
The Convention pushers’ false claims & assurances about the Convention Process
3. They claim George Mason said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, we need a Convention to amend the Constitution.
· Mason never said that! The Framers agreed the purpose of Amendments is to correct defects in the Constitution.
· Mason’s concern was that Congress might not consent to Amendments needed to correct defects in the Constitution. HERE is what Mason really said.
4. Who judges and counts the applications? They assure State Legislators that Congress “can’t” call a Convention until Congress gets 34 applications asking for the same Amendment & that Delegates “can’t” do anything except consider Amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.
But our Constitution doesn’t say that – they made it up!
And meanwhile, their supporters in Congress are filing legislation for Congress to count all applications together – regardless of the Amendment specified in State Legislature’s application.
5. Who decides how Delegates will be selected? They assure State Legislators that they will select & control the Delegates.
But our Constitution doesn’t say that – they made it up!
· And in Congress’ preliminary preparations for a convention in the past, they provided for the election of Delegates.
We don’t know what the Congress of today would decide….
III.
The Convention pushers’ misrepresentations of the holdings of federal court opinions
6. The “Convention of States” organization (COS) distributes this flyer to State Legislators. COS misrepresents what the Courts said!
Here’s my response showing what the Courts actually held.
IV.
The Convention pushers’ false claims about whom they really serve & their faked “popular support”
7. Mark Meckler tells State Legislators that his organizations are funded by grandmas sending him $5.00 checks out of their paltry monthly incomes (with little notes attached saying they wish they could give more). But Dark Money—Not the Grassroots—Is Behind the Convention of States Organizations (COS) proves that almost 2/3 of the money driving Meckler’s effort to get State Legislatures to apply to Congress for a convention under Article V of the US Constitution is coming from major donors annually giving Meckler’s organizations $5,000 to $2,000,000 each over the latest 3 years of reporting available. Why are multi-billionaires trying to get their hands on our Constitution?
The Convention pushers are spending millions of dollars every year to buy a Convention: Meckler’s “Convention of States Action” organization alone spent $10,689,465.00 for 2022 [link under “Core Financials” & the 2022 Tax Form 990 for Convention of States Action [item 18 on page 1].
No organization with donors like that & with two Board Members (Robert P. George & C. Boyden Gray) who are also Members of The Council on Foreign Relations is a “grassroots” organization.
8. COS claims to have massive grassroots support for an Article V Convention. However, there is considerable evidence that their alleged support is faked:
· This Phony Petitions & Polls flyer tells of how, during 2018, two Idaho Legislators reported that the COS Petitions they received were digitally “signed” by some constituents who, when contacted, said they never signed. Representative Priscilla Giddings called this practice “hi-tech fraud”. Representative Dorothy Moon called it “dirty tricks”.
· In this video, Representative Pepper Ottman of Wyoming tells of how during 2023, she received hundreds of emails from alleged supporters of SJR 11 (“COS’s” application for a convention). Since the names and addresses of [alleged] senders were provided, she contacted the alleged senders and they said they didn’t send the emails!
· In this video, Representative Sarah Penn, also of Wyoming, recounts of how she received emails in support of SJR 11 from “constituents” – but when she contacted them, they responded with comments such as, “I don’t know what this is – I didn’t send it – what is COS?”
· In this video, a South Dakota Senator Exposes COS Deceit and Fake Petitions Including From His Own Wife!
V.
So what’s the real agenda?
The Globalists want a new Constitution which moves the United States into global government.
9. The North American Union: During 2005, President George W. Bush, the Prime Minister of Canada, & the President of Mexico hammered out a Plan for a North American Community. A Task Force for the Council on Foreign Relations wrote it up – here’s their Report. It provides for the political integration of Canada, the US, & Mexico. A Parliament is set up over the three Members and their military & police forces are combined.
The USMCA Trade Agreement: This so-called “Trade Agreement” between the United States, Mexico and Canada was approved by the United States during the Trump Administration. It is, in reality, a Transfer of Sovereignty Agreement. It provides for the economic & financial integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In addition to putting the three countries under global regulation of a host of issues such as patents, environmental regulation, labor, immigration policy, prohibition of discriminatory practices respecting sexual preferences and “gender identity” in the workplaces; it puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in control of our economy and binds us to submit to an international monetary system which is to be administered and enforced (at least initially) by the IMF and which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve system. 2
The Declaration of North America: The Biden Administration is also pushing the North American Community: On Jan 10, 2023, Biden, the Prime Minister of Canada, & the President of Mexico issued the Declaration of North America. It’s a summary of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report on the North American Community.
On December 7, 2023, the United Nations’ “Human Rights Committee” issued it’s Final Report [click on “PDF”], wherein it praises the Biden Administration for its progress in complying with the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 3 by promoting abortion & transgenderism. The Report goes on to demand that the Covenant be applied in the United States’ “domestic legal order at the federal, state, local and territorial levels” (5). It objects to State Laws restricting abortion for women & girls (29). It objects to State Laws restricting voting by mail & ballot collection, and to “burdensome” voter ID requirements (64-65). It demands background checks for all private acquisitions of firearms & ammunition, and red flag confiscations. It demands bans on “assault rifles” & “high-capacity” magazines (35). It demands laws at the federal, state, local and territorial levels preventing schools from prohibiting biological boys who identify as girls from using girls’ bathrooms or competing in girls’ sports (24-25). It demands that the United States rectify past discriminations against Muslims seeking entry into the US (16-17). See also Alex Newman’s article, UN Report Condemns U.S., Demanding Speech Control, Constitution Change & More Abortion.
10. The above is antithetical to our existing Constitution. The structure of the global government is already in place and its policies are now being carried out 4; but it is not yet “legal“. They have no legal authority to force the federal, State and local governments to submit to their demands. So they need a new Constitution for the United States which moves us into the global government and strips the States and The People of their Rights and retained powers. Under the new system, we will have only the rights “granted” to us by government. 5
To get a new Constitution, they need Congress to call an Article V Convention. A Convention isn’t about getting Amendments to our existing Constitution – that’s just the pretext for inducing State Legislatures to apply to Congress for Congress to call a convention. James Madison expressly warned that those who secretly wish for a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting Amendments”. He said that here, at endnote 3.
Beware of false friends and paid celebrities and endorsers who are selling you into slavery.
11. A Constitution which formally implements the Council on Foreign Relations’ Task Force Report hasn’t been released. But several other proposed Constitutions have been released:
· The Constitution for the Newstates of America: Article XII, §1 provides for ratification by a referendum initiated by the President. 6 The States are dissolved & replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. We are disarmed under this Constitution (Article I, Part B, § 8).
· The Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America was prepared by the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.
· The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official agency of the federal government. Under their Constitution Drafting Project, they released three proposed new Constitutions (read them here):
o The Progressive Constitution,
o The Libertarian Constitution, and
o The so-called “Conservative” Constitution. This Constitution was co-authored by the above-mentioned COS Board Member Robert P. George. It creates a new federal government which has express constitutional authority to impose gun control & red flag confiscations.
12. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, 4 US Supreme Court Justices & other legal scholars warn against an Article V Convention. They understand that a Convention would likely result in the imposition of a new Constitution – after all, we have already gotten rid of one Constitution at an “Amendments Convention” & replaced it with a new one. Here’s what happened:
· Our first Constitution was The Articles of Confederation. It had defects. So on Feb. 21, 1787, the Continental Congress Resolved to call a convention to be held at Philadelphia,
“…for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation…”
· But the Delegates ignored the instructions of Congress and similar instructions from the States, and wrote a new Constitution (our present Constitution of 1787) which created a new federal government.
And the new Constitution had an easier mode of ratification: it would be ratified when only 9 of the then 13 States approved it (Art. VII); whereas Amendments to the Articles of Confederation had to be approved by the Continental Congress & all of the then 13 States (Art. 13).
In Federalist 40 (15th para), James Madison, who was a delegate to the Federal “Amendments Convention” of 1787, invoked the Declaration of Independence as justification for the Delegates’ ignoring their instructions to propose Amendments to the Articles of Confederation and writing a new Constitution which created a new Form of gov’t. Go here to see where Madison said it.
VI.
The Remedy our Framers actually advised:
13. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton wrote that because the States created the federal government [when they ratified the Constitution], the States are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other; and that when the fed gov’t usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the fed gov’t. The refusal to go along with unconstitutional acts is the remedy they advised when the fed gov’t violates the Constitution.
This is not a mere “constitutional right” created by our Constitution of 1787 – this is the God-given natural right of self-defense which pre-dates and pre-exists the Constitution. And it is the Right of the “Creator” to judge the acts of its “Creature”.
VII.
Please Rescind your States’ existing applications for Congress to call a Convention
14. Here is an archived & unofficial list of applications for a Convention already submitted by State Legislatures to Congress. Under the method of counting applications proposed by COS supporters in Congress, any one of the applications filed by your State Legislature could be counted by Congress to make your State one of the 34 States applying for a Convention.
Please protect our Constitution and promptly rescind all of your State’s applications. Heed the warnings, stand firm against a Convention, and do not let us be moved into the New World Order.
Endnotes:
1. Here is where Madison said he “trembled” at the prospect of another Convention.
2. For details on the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and the North American Union, refer to the three articles posted here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/usmca-trade-agreement/
3. The United States ratified the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on June 8, 1992 under President George Bush, Sr.
4. E.g., the immigration laws passed by the US Congress have long been ignored. The US government has been taking its orders respecting immigration from the United Nations. That’s why our Borders are wide open. The globalists are right now in the process of imposing their new monetary system on the United States. They are right now demanding that State & local governments submit to the UN’s perverse agenda respecting “human rights”.
5. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that Rights come from God and that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of securing the rights God gave us.
Compare that with the new conception of “rights” pushed in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 8 provides we have the rights granted to us by the constitution or by law.
- Article 21 provides that “the will of the people” is the basis of the authority of government; and that “the will of the people” is expressed by those whom they elect to public office (let that sink in).
- Article 29 provides that our rights & freedoms can’t ever be exercised “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” (let that sink in – the UN is the ultimate Authority – not God).
6. Note well: Any new Constitution will have its own mode of ratification. The mode of ratification for our US Constitution of 1787 is set forth at Article VII thereof. The mode of ratification of the proposed Newstates Constitution is set forth at Article XII, Sec. 1 thereof. Convention pushers are not telling the Truth when they assure you that “anything which comes out of a Convention must be approved by 3/4 of the States before it can be effective“.
Share this:
What’s the real agenda behind red-flag confiscations and gun controls?
By Joanna Martin, J.D.
When a person makes threats about killing others, the only constitutionally acceptable course of action is to treat that particular person in accordance with the existing criminal laws of the State. To instead subject everyone to red flag confiscations shows that the real agenda is to disarm “The People”. But the US Constitution doesn’t permit that.
State Legislatures have no constitutional authority to enact into Law whatever a majority of them may happen to believe is a good idea. To the contrary, State Legislatures are mere “creatures” of the State Constitution which created them – and it is that Document, together with various provisions of the US Constitution, which define and limit their authority to make laws. State Legislatures have only limited constitutional authority to make laws restricting arms. 1
A Transcendent Principle of our Land has always been that The People have the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of this Right is – as James Madison recognizes in Federalist No. 46 – to protect us from government.
And because the leading cause of unnatural death in this world, particularly since the beginning of the 20th Century, is murder by government – democide; we must have the ability to defend ourselves from government.
Before governments can murder great numbers of people, they must disarm them first: As lawyer and philosopher Stephen P. Halbrook shows in Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State”, the NAZIS used gun control to disarm and repress their enemies and consolidate power, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless.
That’s what gun control and red flag confiscations is really about. It has nothing to do with protecting children. People who want to protect children oppose abortion, the injection of children with experimental substances, and sex change surgery on children.
1. Global government, eugenics, and “sustainable development”
Powerful people seek to move the United States into global government – the New World Order – the North American Union – the Great Reset. But the American People oppose global government.
Yuval Noah Harari of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset says you and I are “useless”, “meaningless”, and “worthless”. They don’t need us anymore. Prince Philip of England said during 1988 that if he were reincarnated, he “would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”
Kelleigh Nelson shows that work to rid the World of “inferior” or superfluous people has been going on in America: America’s Medical Guinea Pigs, Depopulation and Eugenics, Part One; Blood Lust: Covid Vaccines, and Culling the Population, Part Two; and The Demonic Carnage of Vaccines, Part Three.
The United Nations claims that population growth interferes with “sustainable development”. Pro-abortion US Vice-President Kamala Harris wants to reduce the population so “the children” can have cleaner air and water. Former US Secretary of State John Kerry wants to destroy the farming industry because “Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world. And we can’t get to net zero—we don’t get this job done—unless agriculture is front and centre as part of the solution.”
How will Americans eat when the farms are shut down? There will be hundreds of millions of starving Americans. The globalists must disarm us before they cut off our food supply.
Their “final solution” to the above “problems” is to kill us. But first, they must disarm us.
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee isn’t the only “conservative” who is pushing for gun control and red flag confiscations.
President Trump said, respecting red flag laws, “Take the guns first, go through due process second”, thus showing his total lack of understanding of the concept of “due process”.
Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, who has been on Mark Meckler’s “Convention of States” Legal Advisory Board since its inception during 2014, has already co-authored a new Constitution which provides constitutional authority for gun control and red flag confiscations. 2
Professor George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR seeks to move the United States into global government – the North American Union. Americans don’t want to be moved into the North American Union. So we must be rendered powerless to prevent it [link].
2. What is “due process”?
“Due process of law” is a term with a precise technical import going back to the Magna Charta; and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property cannot be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! See Professor Raoul Berger’s masterful work, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment”, at Part I, Chapter 11 “Due Process of Law”.
The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution says:
“…nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law…”
The 14th Amendment says at § 1:
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
But US Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019”, provided that if a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does NOT pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.
Rubio’s bill put the burden of proof on the Respondent! For eons in Anglo/American Jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT. But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.
All versions of red flag legislation are based on taking peoples’ property away from them based on a Judge’s speculation that they might in the future commit a crime with the gun. As in Tom Cruz’s movie, “Minority Report”, we can be accused of and punished for gun crimes we haven’t committed.
And even if Respondents in a red flag proceedings were afforded their due process right of a trial before their peers before their arms were confiscated; I am unaware of any State Constitution which permits a person to be disarmed for the reason that others speculate that the person might in the future commit a crime with the gun. Certainly, the US Constitution forbids such pre-crime confiscations.
Red flag laws are “pre-crime confiscations”. They violate the due process clauses of the US Constitution; as well as a host of other federal and state constitutional provisions.
3. Don’t invite political abuse of psychiatry into America
Advocates of red flag confiscations may claim that they only want to confiscate guns from mentally ill people. And since you are not mentally ill, red flag laws won’t affect you, right?
Not so. Just as the US Department of Justice denounced as “domestic terrorists“ Moms who spoke out at School Board Meetings against porn in the schools, mask mandates, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory; red flag laws which purport to permit seizure only from mentally ill persons will result in application of the definition of “mentally ill” which prevailed in the Soviet Union. There, political opposition or dissent was defined as a psychiatric problem.
4. We have a moral problem, not a gun problem
I began first grade during 1949. At that time, the Ten Commandments were posted in public schools. I could already read and saw every day the Commandments, “Thou shall not kill” – “Thou shall not steal” – “Thou shall not bear false witness”. We had prayers and Bible readings. America was a safe place: people didn’t lock their doors and children played outdoors unsupervised by adults.
But beginning in 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the US Supreme Court commenced its war against Christianity by banning prayers in the public schools. During 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court banned the posting of The Ten Commandments in the public schools.
Even though these Opinions were clearly unconstitutional [link], State Legislatures failed to do their Duty to nullify these unconstitutional decisions. They should have passed laws directing their public school teachers and administrators to ignore the Opinions. 3
But State Legislatures failed to act. So God’s Moral Laws were replaced by Moral Relativism – where moral judgments and values are not based on Transcendent and objective Principles [e.g., The Ten Commandments] but on one’s personal feelings and desires. THAT is the root problem in our Land – We forgot God. See also Ideas That Are Destroying America by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero.
Endnotes:
1 In this paper, I focus on “due process” and red flag confiscations. In a subsequent paper, I will show how extremely limited is the constitutional authority of the Tennessee Legislature to restrict arms.
2 Robert P. George, a law professor, apparently understands that our existing US Constitution prohibits state or federal gun controls and red flag confiscations; and that a new federal Constitution is needed before we can be disarmed.
3 Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton pointed out since the States created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution; they are the final authority on whether their “creature” has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other. And when the federal government usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.
Share this:
Parents’ Statutory "Bill of Rights" – a massive Transfer of Power over Children from Parents to Governments
By Joanna Martin, J.D. (Publius Huldah)
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” – Ayn Rand
“I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.” – Martin Luther
On February 2 of this year (2023), the North Carolina Senate passed SB 49, which bears the deceptive title of “Parents’ Bill of Rights”. It transfers massive open-ended powers over children to the federal and state governments and to the “governing body” of the school. The Parents are “granted” enumerated rights 1 and every such right is qualified by exceptions which may be carved out at any time by the various levels of governments. This is a profoundly evil piece of work; and if it passes the House, Parents in North Carolina with minor children would be wise to consider leaving the State and taking their children with them.
Civilizations – and Nations – arise on one belief system – and collapse on another. Let us begin by looking at the belief system embraced during our Founding Era respecting the Origin of Rights and the purpose of government. Then we will look at the belief system embraced from the time the first Colonists settled our Country respecting the parent child relation until the rise, during the 1840s, of public education. 2 Then I will show you the belief system respecting “Rights” which is being pushed on us by those who seek to strip us of our God given rights.
1. Our Founding Principles respecting the Origin of Rights and the purpose of government
Our Declaration of Independence is the fundamental act of our Founding, and part of the “organic law” – foundational law – of our Land. There we recognized the existence of self-evident Truths – Truths which come from above – which have a transcendent origin – which were woven in to the Fabric of Reality by the Creator God. The five Truths we recognized in our Declaration are:
(1) All men are created equal. This is our formal acknowledgment that we have a Creator; and we are equal before The Law.
(2) Rights have a transcendent origin – they come from the Creator God. Thus, our Rights have existed since the Dawn of Creation.
(3) The purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us. We thus declared that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of carrying out God’s Will respecting the Rights God determined we have.
(4) People create governments. The first three words of our Constitution, “We The People”, were the most radical ever written to establish a government. With those three words, we repudiated the European model where political power originates with the king or the State. 3 Under the European model, people are subjects to the Absolute Will of civil government. But our Constitution was founded on the Principle that … The People are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority”. 4
(5) And when a government becomes destructive of our God given rights, we have the Right – We have the Duty – to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.
These are our Founding Principles. By invoking these Truths, we acknowledged that Rights have a transcendent origin; and further, that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of carrying out God’s Will respecting the Rights God determined we have.
2. The Parent-Child Relation ordained by God
The Creator God who, as acknowledged by our Declaration of Independence, endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children. Parents are to:
- Provide for their children’s physical needs: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.
- Provide for the education and moral instruction of their children: Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5 & 3:15-17; and they are to
- Discipline their children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.
Nowhere in the Bible does God endow civil government with power over the education and upbringing of children. Those responsibilities are vested in Parents.
3. The new Belief system: the United Nation’s Concept of Rights – qualified and conditional grants from governments to serve the government’s interests
For well over 100 years, our Founding Principles have been under attack. We’ve been conditioned to believe that Rights come from Constitutions, from Legislatures, or from the Courts; that governments may serve their own interests instead of securing God-given rights; and to accept the authoritarian model where the People are subjects of the governments.
SB 49 adopts the new conception of “rights” illustrated in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here is a quick overview of that Declaration:
- Article 8 provides we have the rights granted to us by the constitution or by law.
- Article 21 provides that “the will of the people” is the basis of the authority of government; and that “the will of the people” is expressed by those whom they elect to public office.
- Article 29 provides that our rights & freedoms can’t ever be exercised “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
So! In this brave new world of the United Nations, rights come from government; governments may do whatever “the people” want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us – and the Will of the People is expressed by those whom they elect to public office]; and rights are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].
The United Nations doesn’t acknowledge any authority superior to itself. Contrast that with our Declaration of Independence which reflects the Principle that governments are God’s agents to carry out God’s Will respecting the Rights God gave us.
4. North Carolina’s SB 49
The bill is single-spaced and a little over 10 pages long. It’s visually difficult to read. Who would bother reading beyond the Short Title, which is “Parents’ Bill of Rights”? Surely, the 23 Sponsors didn’t bother to read it; and surely the 29 Republican Senators who voted for it didn’t read it. No one with a conscience could read this and support it.
In a nutshell, what SB 49 does is to transfer power over children from parents to governments. Parents’ “rights” consist of the privilege of being notified [sometimes] of decisions made respecting their children by governments; and they are granted certain rights to challenge some of the decisions.
Here are some of the provisions of SB 49:
· Page 1, lines 27-30 grant to parents the right to enroll their child in any school choice option “available to the parent” for which the child is “eligible by law”. So parents can’t homeschool unless the Legislature permits it.
· Page 1, lines 31-33: the federal government will decide which education records kept on their child parents may see.
· Page 1, lines 34-35 thru Page 2, lines 1- 9: Parents have the right to make health care decisions for their child unless the State Legislature or the federal government say they can’t make the decisions.
· Page 2, lines 10-31 grant to parents the right to prohibit the creation, sharing, or storage of a biometric scan, the blood or DNA, or a video or voice recording of their child, unless the government decides to collect and store this data.
· Page 2, lines 32-35 grant to Parents the right to be notified if a State employee suspects that a crime has been committed against their child – unless the government decides parents shouldn’t be notified.
· Page 2, lines 38-46 list some of the things parents are not “authorized” to do, such as “abusing the child”. The State Legislature will decide what constitutes “abusing the child”. When I was in junior high school, it was my responsibility to take care of the chickens: I cleaned their coops, cleaned and filled their water buckets, feed them and gathered the eggs. Was that “child abuse”? I expect there is no shortage of loons who declare that having children do farm chores constitutes “child abuse”.
· Page 3 informs parents that they are in “partnership” with the public schools and grants to parents the right to “participate” in their child’s education.
· Page 4, lines 1-34 grant to parents the “legal rights” to withhold consent for their child’s participation in reproductive health programs; to seek exemptions from immunization requirements; to review standardized test results; to inspect school textbooks; to opt out of certain “data collections” for their child; to participate in “protected student information surveys”, and so forth, consistent with the requirements of law. So if the Law requires that the data on your child be collected, then it will be collected and parents can’t stop it.
· Page 4, lines 35 to 50 provide that the State Board of Education will decide what parents “need to know” about their child’s educational progress. So if the State Board decides parents don’t need to know, then parents won’t be informed.
SB 49 goes on and on like this for 6 more pages. I’ll mention only a few of the more virulent features in the remaining pages. Pages 6 – 7 address the “governing bodies of public school units”. Page 6, lines 1-37 state that the governing body 5 is to develop policies which “provide for parental choices and establish parental responsibilities.” Please let that sink in. Who is in charge of your children? The governing body of the school is in charge – and they are given statutory authority to tell parents what they can and can’t do respecting their child.
Page 8, lines 11-17 assure parents that their child will not receive “instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality from kindergarten thru the 4th grade! Wow! So what can happen in the 5th grade? Your child will doubtless receive detailed instruction on [I beg your Pardon for speaking of these things, but this is what our little children are being subjected to in the public schools] how to perform and receive anal intercourse, how to provide and receive oral sex, and who knows what other sexual practices? Your son will no doubt be encouraged to believe that he is really a girl; and your daughter will no doubt be encouraged to believe that she is really a boy. Look around you, People! This monstrous evil is going on in the public schools right now – and the poisonous SB 49 legalizes it beginning with the 5th grade.
Page 9, lines 5-34 establish procedures for school children to be transformed into STASI like informers on their parents. 6 These lines describe “protected information surveys“. These surveys will obtain information revealing the political affiliations or beliefs of the student’s parents; mental or psychological problems of the student or his family; sex behavior or attitudes; self-incriminating behavior; critical appraisals of students’ family relationships; religious practices of the student or the student’s parents; and so forth. But don’t worry – parents will be given 10 days’ notice and the opportunity to review the survey before it is administered and parents may opt out. The schools will no doubt fall down on the job of providing the advance notification to parents. Furthermore, this provision to “opt out” will be repealed just as that provision in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which assured Americans that their Federal Reserve Notes would be fully redeemable in gold was repealed. And see the boldfaced words discussed above at comment on Page 4, lines 1-34: If this information is required by law to be collected, then it will be collected and children will be turned into STASI agents for the State.
5. Legislative irresponsibility and Citizens’ shallowness permit evil legislation to be passed
Legislators should STOP voting for legislation they haven’t read and don’t understand. It is immoral for bill sponsors to repeat the talking points they were given by those who drafted Legislation unless the sponsor has made an independent critical assessment of the legislation to determine whether the talking points are True or False. Citizens must read beyond the title and look behind the curtain before they clamor for passage of bills with great-sounding titles.
Endnotes:
1 This is a total inversion of our Founding Principles: With our Constitution of 1787, we created a federal government to which We The People delegated enumerated powers – with all other powers being reserved to the States or The People. With SB 49, the Rights of the People are enumerated – and all “rights” not granted to the People by the governments are held back by the governments.
2 Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s book, “Is Public Education Necessary”, is a masterpiece which shows how the public school system was foisted on the American People. You can read his work here.
3 I use the term, “State”, the way the political philosophers use it: It refers to the civil government – not to, e.g., the State of Tennessee.
4 Federalist Paper No. 22, last sentence (Alexander Hamilton).
5 How are the members of the “governing body” selected? Are they elected? Are they appointed? Who appoints them?
6 STASI is the acronym for the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Committee for State Security) which was the security service for the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). It operated by means of civilian informants. If you want to see what it was like to live under such a system, watch this movie, The Lives of Others. That movie accurately depicts life in East Germany under the STASI.
Share this:
Comments on the proposed Amendments to the Tennessee Constitution
In these evil times, when the wicked control governments, a prudent person is suspicious of everything they propose. I oppose all 4 of the proposed Amendments.
Constitutional Amendment #1
Question:
Shall Article XI of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language as a new section?
It is unlawful for any person, corporation, association, or this state or its political subdivisions to deny or attempt to deny employment to any person by reason of the person’s membership in, affiliation with, resignation from, or refusal to join or affiliate with any labor union or employee organization.
Why I oppose it:
The purpose of Constitutions is to create governments and to define the powers of the government. In Constitutions, a free and prudent People don’t normally impose limitations or requirements on themselves! 1
The “hook” in the proposed amendment is “any labor union”. That may be intended to gain the support of the “right to work” crowd.
But the proposed amendment would prohibit private Citizens and small private business owners from declining to hire people because of their affiliations. If I were operating a private school, I would not hire as a Teacher anyone who was a member of a Teachers Union. These Teachers’ Unions have been instrumental in corrupting the minds and morals of our Children; but this proposed amendment would not permit a private school owner to deny them employment in their private school!
And think of what could be encompassed by “employee organization”! What if Satanists form an “employee organization”? This proposed Amendment would prohibit anyone from declining to hire a member of the Satanist “employee organization”!
Private Citizens and businesses must have the freedom to hire or not to hire as they deem best. Do not give up that Right by approving Constitutional Amendment # 1.
Constitutional Amendment # 2
Article III, Section 12, of the Tennessee Constitution presently reads:
“In case of the removal of the governor from office, or of his death, or resignation, the powers and duties of the office shall devolve on the speaker of the Senate; and in case of the death, removal from office, or resignation of the speaker of the Senate, the powers and duties of the office shall devolve on the speaker of the House of Representatives.”
This is the proposed Amendment:
Question:
Shall Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language immediately following the current language in the Section?
Whenever the Governor transmits to the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a written, signed declaration that the Governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the powers and duties of the office of Governor shall be temporarily discharged by the Speaker of the Senate as Acting Governor, or if that office is unoccupied, then by the Speaker of the House of Representatives as Acting Governor, until the Governor transmits to the same officials a written, signed declaration that the Governor is able to discharge the powers and duties of the office.
Whenever a majority of the commissioners of administrative departments of the Executive Department transmits to the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written, signed declaration that the Governor is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Speaker of the Senate shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting Governor, or if that office is unoccupied, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting Governor, until the Governor transmits to the same officials a written, signed declaration that the Governor is able to discharge the powers and duties of the office.
Whenever a Speaker is temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the office of Governor as Acting Governor, such Speaker shall not be required to resign the Speaker’s position as the Speaker or to resign as a member of the general assembly and shall retain the Speaker’s salary and not receive the Governor’s salary, but such Speaker shall not preside as Speaker or vote as a member of the general assembly during the time the Speaker is Acting Governor.
and
Shall Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language immediately before the period at the end of the Section?
except as provided in Article III, Section 12 with regard to the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the office of Governor as Acting Governor
and
Shall Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by adding the following language at the end of the Section?
This section shall not apply with regard to the Speaker of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives temporarily discharging the powers and duties of the office of Governor as Acting Governor under Article III, Section 12.
Why I oppose it:
Why do they want to change the existing language to track the provisions of Sections 3 & 4 of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution?
Do you remember the chatter, during the Trump Administration, about invoking the 25th Amendment to oust Trump from Office? In the event Tennessee ever gets a faithful and honest Governor who obeys our Constitution [as opposed to courting the “friendship” of the government of Communist China]; would these proposed amendments to the Tennessee Constitution be used to oust the honest Governor?
Constitutional Amendment # 3
Article I, Section 33 of the Tennessee Constitution currently reads:
“That slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, are forever prohibited in this state.” 2
Question:
Shall Article I, Section 33 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the section and substituting instead the following?
Section 33. Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited. Nothing in this section shall prohibit an inmate from working when the inmate has been duly convicted of a crime.
Why I oppose it:
Why do they want to change the existing wording? What’s their agenda? What would the Amendment allow which the existing language of Article I, Section 33 prohibits?
I was raised in the “Jim Crow” South. When I was a child, my Father told me of black men who had been arrested and put to work for private Citizens who got their Labor for free. Specifically, that some wealthy people owned large pine tree forests and these black men were put to work in the pine forests doing grueling work such as making turpentine.
It is fine for able-bodied convicted persons to be put to work on public projects, such as picking up trash on the sides of roads; but it is wicked to permit convicts to be put to work to enrich private interests. We would do well to remember that such was done to Prisoners in NAZI Germany.
Whenever existing language in a Constitution is changed, the entire body of pre-existing court Opinions construing that existing language is done away with. And Courts can start afresh with a new interpretation of the new provision. The proposed Amendment would permit Courts to say that convicts may be put to work to benefit private interests.
Constitutional Amendment # 4
Article IX, § 1 currently reads:
Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.
Question:
Shall Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution of Tennessee be amended by deleting the section?
Why I oppose the Amendment:
In the early days of our Republic (and before that while we were Colonies), the States had their own “established religions” [i.e., tax-supported Churches]. It was the State Legislatures which decided what the “established religion” for their State would be. And, as in Connecticut, members of one denomination [Baptists] were forced to pay tithes to the Established Church of the State [the Congregational Church]. State Legislatures controlled by Protestants often discriminated against Roman Catholics. 3
Our own History shows the excellent reason for disqualifying clergymen from State Legislatures.
So why do they want to delete Article IX, § 1? What would the deletion permit? For starters, deletion would permit Ministers of the Church of Satan, clerics of religions antithetical to our Constitution, and such like, to be Members of the State Legislature.
Be prudent and be suspicious.
Endnotes:
1 The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibited The People from owning slaves; but that Amendment was necessary because previously, the Constitution had authorized the institution of slavery; and in order to correct that defect in the Constitution, it was necessary to prohibit the People from owning slaves.
2 The current language is similar to the language of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution.
3 See The Lie of “Separation of Church and State” & the U.S. Supreme Court’s Usurpations of Power.
Share this:
Article V Convention Legislation filed in Congress shows how Applications will be counted: it’s not what Lobbyists promised you
By Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)
Legislation recently filed in Congress shows that the assurances pro-convention lobbyists have been making to State Legislators to induce them to apply to Congress for Congress to call a Convention under Article V of our Constitution are false.
These lobbyists have convinced too many State Legislators that our Framers said that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to get a convention to amend the Constitution. Our Framers never said such a silly thing! But that is what is behind the push for an Article V convention.
Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending the Constitution 1) Congress may propose amendments by two-thirds majority in both Houses; or 2) Congress, upon the applications of two-thirds of the State Legislatures, calls a convention where the Delegates may propose amendments. The second method has never been used – it’s dangerous!
Nevertheless, the pro-convention lobby has been assuring State Legislators that a Convention is perfectly safe because State Legislatures will control it: They will determine the amendments to be considered at the Convention; Congress can’t call a convention until Congress receives 34 applications from State Legislatures which ask for the same amendment; and Delegates to the convention may consider nothing but amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.
If Congress calls a convention, would Congress or the Delegates to the Convention be constrained by the Lobbyists’ assurances to State Legislators?
Of course not! The Delegates – as Sovereign Representatives of The People – would have the self-evident Right, recognized by the Declaration of Independence, “to alter or to abolish” our “Form of Government.” Accordingly, Congress isn’t empowered by Article V or anything else in the Constitution to call a limited convention restricted to considering only the amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures.
And now, legislation consistent with this “self-evident Right” has been recently filed in Congress:
On July 19, 2022, Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas introduced H.Con.Res.101, which calls a convention; and H.R. 8419, which sets forth how applications for a convention are to be counted.
These Resolutions show that the convention pushers’ assurances that Delegates to the Convention can do nothing but consider amendments requested by 34 State Legislatures, are false:
H.C.R. 101 §1(a) (1) says, “…Congress hereby calls a convention for proposing amendments…”
H.R. 8419 creates subsection (c) of 1 U.S. Code, § 106, which directs the Archivist of the United States to count all non-rescinded applications asking Congress to call a Convention; and to notify Congress of its duty to call a Convention when the Archivist receives non-rescinded applications for a Convention from two-thirds of the States.
H.R. 8419 doesn’t permit the Archivist to sort the applications by the amendments specified by State Legislatures. Instead, H.R. 8419 directs the Archivist to count all non-rescinded applications together.
One group pushing for a Convention has already admitted that Congress can “mix & match” the various applications for a convention: This group combined non-rescinded applications passed in 1789, several passed in 1861 to avert the Civil War, and during 1901 for popular election of US Senators with applications passed in recent decades for a balanced budget amendment. 1
And the Archivist of the United States is, in effect, directed by H.R. 8419 to mix and match the various applications! If an application is non-rescinded, the Archivist is directed to count it to get to 34.
So H.C.R. 101 & H.R. 8419 really are consistent with the “self-evident right” of a People to alter or abolish their government and set up a new one. And they reveal that whoever drafted these Resolutions also understands that State Legislatures have no power to dictate what is considered by Delegates at the convention. In State Legislatures’ applications to Congress for a convention, they sometimes insist that they will control the convention (see p. 2, line 19 thru p. 7 of this application in the Pennsylvania Senate); but the Truth is that the Constitution sets forth what Congress has the power to do respecting an Article V Convention; and State Legislatures cannot change this by wishful thinking. And State Legislatures cannot dictate to Congress how Congress is to exercise a power the Constitution grants to Congress!
If Congress calls an Article V convention, you can be sure that a new Constitution will be imposed on us. 2 The convention of 1787 was called “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But the convention proposed a new Constitution which had a new mode of ratification and which created a new form of government. James Madison warned that those who secretly want a new Constitution would push for an Article V Convention under the pretext of “getting amendments”.
State Legislators need to open their eyes and see that while they are being used to get a Convention; they will have no power over the Convention; and won’t be able to do anything to stop a new Constitution with its own new mode of ratification from being imposed on us. State Legislatures must immediately rescind the applications for a convention they already sent to Congress.
Endnotes:
1 At the time the “BBA” organization prepared their chart, the applications they counted were non-rescinded. They counted 33 States with active applications on file with Congress. But thankfully, after their Chart was published, several of the States listed on their Chart wised-up and rescinded their applications. Other States whose previous applications for a convention are still active better rescind them before the Archivist gets her hands on them!
2 A member of Mark Meckler’s “COS” Legal Advisory Board, Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, has already co-authored a new Constitution which grants massive new powers to a new federal government and imposes gun controls with red flag confiscations. Read it & tremble for your Country.
Share this:
Mark Meckler’s “COS” Board Member has drafted new Constitution which imposes gun control
By Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)
Our Framers understood that a free State cannot exist without an armed and trained populace (i.e., the Militia). Accordingly, they wrote a Constitution which prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing the natural right of the People to keep and bear arms.
Under our Constitution, the federal government has no authority to make any laws whatsoever over the Country at Large restricting the rights of the People to keep and bear arms. Gun control is not an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from infringing the right of the People (the Militia) to keep and bear arms.
The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States; and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States. 1
Applications for Congress to call a convention under Article V, US Constitution
But various groups, such as Mark Meckler’s Convention of “States” (COS) organizations, have been lobbying State Legislators to pass applications asking Congress to call an Article V Convention.
Whether or not State Legislatures should ask Congress to call an Article V Convention is one of the most important – and contentious – issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and propose a new Constitution, with a new and easier mode of ratification, which would create a new government. 2
The Pennsylvania Senators Roundtable Discussion
On November 8, 2021, several Pennsylvania Senators conducted a roundtable discussion about whether they should pass Mark Meckler’s “COS” application (SR 152) for Congress to call an Article V convention. Mark Meckler and his allies were present in support of SR 152. Firearms Owners Against Crime was present in opposition to SR 152. Gun Owners of America was there also. 3
Much of what Meckler said at the roundtable is not true. But this paper focuses on his comments ridiculing his opponents’ concerns that, if there is an Article V convention, we could lose our existing Right to keep and bear arms.
Meckler showed up at the roundtable decked out in gun garb; and, after dropping names to show his connections with gun rights organizations, proceeded throughout the discussion to preen his commitment to “the Second Amendment”. He ridiculed the warnings that if there is an Article V Convention, Delegates would have the power to impose a new Constitution which, among other horrors, strips us of our Right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
Meckler said that Chuck Cooper, a litigator for the NRA, is on COS’s Legal Advisory Board and has written an open letter saying, “…it’s a ridiculous argument that there could be a runaway convention and we could lose our Second Amendment.” [13:31 – 13:57]
A bit later on, Meckler said:
“…Professor Robbie George at Princeton who is considered the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America is on our Legal Advisory Board. … [43:02 – 43:25]
So who is Professor Robbie George? And who says he is the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America?
Robbie George (Robert P. George) was on the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official branch of the federal government.
Robbie George and three others have drafted a new Constitution which severely restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms! His new Constitution says at Article I, Sec. 12, clause 7:
“Neither the States nor the United State [sic] 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.”
So Robbie George’s new Constitution:
-
authorizes the state and federal governments to ban the possession of all arms unless they are “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes”. Who will decide what arms are “ordinarily” used for self-defense or recreation? The governments will decide.
-
authorizes the state governments and the federal government (in those places subject to its “general regulatory authority”), to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations” on the bearing of those arms they permit us to have. What’s a “reasonable” regulation? The governments will decide; and,
-
authorizes the state and federal governments to strip us of our right to keep even those arms “ordinarily used for self-defense”, if someone in the government (presumably a judge) decides you are a danger to yourself or others.
We live in a time when Christians who read the Bible; People who read the Constitution; and Moms who speak out at School Board meetings against pornography in the schools, mask mandates, or the teaching of critical race theory, are labeled “domestic terrorists”. Should “domestic terrorists” be allowed to keep and bear arms? Of course not- they are dangerous!
At the roundtable, John Velleco of Gun Owners of America said:
“The questions that we’re dealing with on this is how will this [Meckler’s “COS” application SR 152] impact the Second Amendment? Because that’s, as an organization, that’s all we care about. … So we need to determine if this is something that seriously could impact in a negative way the Second Amendment, then we are compelled to engage 100%. … our bigger issues in Pennsylvania are passing constitutional carry.” [1:07:05 – 1:07:51]
Yet even though Meckler’s Board Member Robbie George had already participated in the drafting of a new Constitution which imposes gun control; and thereby would rescind the Second Amendment, Meckler responded:
“And I will tell you there are 5 Million people in this country … that are signed up for convention of states. Right here, there are 90,000 in this state. 90,000!
The question was asked, will this help pass constitutional carry? The answer is hell yes, it will! Because right now, our activists are very angry with gun rights organizations in this state. And they’ll not support anything that these gun organizations are doing, because they’re now sworn enemies on Article V. … But I will say, on Kim Stolfer’s organization, they should be working with these organizations. Every one of those 90,000 should be signed up with these organizations and members of these organizations fighting for everything they [the gun organizations] want.” [1:21:21 – 1:22:05]
So Meckler, who postures as a “Second Amendment guy” [13:31-13:57] , threatened that unless Kim Stolfer supports Meckler’s SR 152 application for a convention, Mecker’s alleged 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania 4 will not support anything Kim Stolfer’s gun rights organization does!
Look behind the Curtain
This push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch ever perpetrated on the American People. It’s all about getting a new Constitution under the pretext of getting amendments. 5 If Congress calls an Article V convention, Robbie George’s proposed Constitution, or another just as tyrannical, can be proposed. 6 And since any new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification (such as a national referendum), it’s sure to be approved.
The solution to our political and economic problems is to read and enforce the Constitution we already have. States and local governments and individual Citizens can take a giant step forward by not taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.
And rescind your States’ existing applications for an Article V convention! It doesn’t matter what the ostensible purpose of a convention is, as set forth in a State’s applications. Once the Convention assembles, the Delegates can do whatever they want including approving the Constitution Robbie George participated in drafting, or another Constitution which will also legalize the tyranny which is taking over our Country.
We are to fight tyranny by resisting it; not by legalizing it.
Endnotes:
1 With the Militia Act of 1792, Congress required all able-bodied male Citizens in the Country (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to buy a rifle, bayonet, ammo & ammo pouch, and report to their local Militia Unit for training. States may not lawfully do anything to interfere with this constitutional grant of power to Congress.
2 This is shown in these flyers:
-
How to get a new Constitution under the pretext of proposing amendments;
-
The US Constitution & Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report show that COS’s assurances that State Legislatures will control a convention are false and reckless. So what is Meckler’s response? To snicker and belittle the CRS! [1:14:35 – 1:14:42]; and
-
What the Convention Lobby isn’t telling you about our Declaration of Independence.
3 These are two large gun rights organizations. John Velleco and Val Finnell appeared for GOA; Kim Stolfer of Pennsylvania appeared for Firearms Owners Against Crime.
4 It should be enlightening to ask Meckler to provide documentation of his claim to have 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania. Legislators in other States have looked behind the curtain and found “COS” claims of support to be false: See Phony Petitions and Polls.
5 James Madison expressly warned of this stratagem: See this flyer at footnote 2.
6 Altogether, the National Constitution Center has three proposed new Constitutions. All of them transfer massive new powers to the new federal government.
Additional proposed Constitutions are discussed here. One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, was produced some 60 years ago [and factions have been pushing for an Article V convention ever since]. Under the Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Article I, Part B., Sec. 8 provides that the People are to be disarmed. Article XII, Sec. 1, provides for ratification by a national referendum – so whoever controls the voting machines will determine the outcome.
Share this:
PUBLIUS HULDAH
Publius-Huldah's Blog 
Defeat “COVID” Mandates by restoring the Genuine Meaning of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses
By Publius Huldah
Someone asked me why I write on the US Constitution when the US Supreme Court won’t enforce it.
This is why: Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the self-evident Truth that Rights come from God, and that they are unalienable. Accordingly, there are certain areas of your life which are off-limits to government regulation – you have an “immunity” from governmental regulation of these areas.
But since the federal and state governments are refusing to recognize our Rights, it falls on us to boldly step up to the plate and insist that our Rights be respected. You have no lawful, moral, or religious duty to submit to a government when it violates our Constitution and seeks to take from you the rights God gave you.
Governments do not have constitutional authority to force you to take the COVID JAB.
And in this paper I show that the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses of the US Constitution prohibit the federal, state, and local governments from requiring you to be “jabbed” or putting you into a concentration camp if they assert that you are at “high risk” of getting infected [i.e., those who are 65 years of age or older].
So Americans are going to have to man-up and assert their God-given rights. But before you can do that, you must understand what your Rights are and what the Constitution says.
Our Constitution of 1787 is a glorious Document. But we didn’t read it, we didn’t adhere to its genuine meaning, and we permitted judges to redefine its terms. We must put a stop to that. The following draft 1 Resolution for State and local governments shows how, by restoring the genuine meanings of the “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses, we can defeat “COVID” tyranny.
Right to Freedom from “COVID” mandates – Model Resolution for State and local governments
I. The Law
WHEREAS, our Declaration of Independence is the Fundamental Act of our Founding and part of the Organic Law of our Land, and recognizes that our Rights come from the Creator God; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; and further, that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is one of enumerated powers only; and We The People did not grant to the federal government power over the Country at Large to interfere in medical or health matters; to dictate that injections be administered to The People; to impose quarantines or “lock-downs” for real or pretended diseases; to establish internment (concentration) camps for the purpose of confining whomsoever the federal government wishes to confine; to require that The People wear devices such as face masks, or to obtain and carry internal passports; or to exercise any other such control over the sanctity of our persons; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides,
WHEREAS, the privileges and immunities clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:
WHEREAS, the due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States provide:
WHEREAS, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England set forth at Book I, Chapter I, pp 128-140 (J.B. Lippincott) [link] the common law definitions of “privileges” and “immunities”; and shows that “immunities” refers to those areas of personal liberty which are free from regulation and control by civil governments, to-wit:
WHEREAS, “due process of law” is a term with a precise technical import going back to the Magna Charta; and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property cannot be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! [See Raoul Berger’s masterful work, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment”, at Part I, Chapter 11 “Due Process of Law” link]; and
WHEREAS, it is a fundamental Principle of Anglo/American Jurisprudence that when Framers of a Constitution or Statute use a term which has been defined at the Common Law, that is the meaning to be assigned to the term in the Constitution or Statute (United States v. Smith (1820) link) & Raoul Berger’s chapter on “Due Process” at p. 222]; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Ohio declares at Article I: Bill of Rights that
II. Violations by the federal government of The Law
WHEREAS, under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the federal government has been involved in the development and administration of a so-called “vaccine”; but that there is considerable evidence that such are not “vaccines” in the traditional sense of the word – but are injections designed to alter human DNA and replace it with a man-made DNA, and to destroy our God-given immune systems; and further that “COVID vaccines” have resulted in many deaths and disabilities among injected persons and are expected to result in a great many more deaths among injected persons in the coming years; and
WHEREAS, also under the pretext of protecting the public from the allegedly dangerous “COVID” disease, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has made plans [here & here] to relocate selected Persons against their wills to internment (concentration) camps which are now, with the connivance of certain State governments, being set up throughout the Country; and
WHEREAS, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is an unconstitutional federal agency which is not authorized by our Constitution to exist; accordingly all of its actions are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and
WHEREAS, by these above-described acts, the federal government has usurped powers not delegated, and hence its acts are not law, but are altogether unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and
WHEREAS, such acts are also unconstitutional as in violation of the right of free assembly within the meaning of the First Amendment to the US Constitution; and
WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of their God-given Immunities from civil government’s regulation of their Persons and Personal Liberty, and deprive them of their God-given Right to the free use and enjoyment of their Property – all in violation of Article IV, §2, US Constitution; and
WHEREAS, such acts also deprive Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.
III. State and local governments
WHEREAS, certain “private” businesses have been seeking to bring about the forced injections of Citizens with the so-called “COVID vaccine” by threatening to fire such Citizens unless they submit to the injection; and further, that for State and local governments to permit such tyranny violates that Principle, set forth in our Declaration of Independence, that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us (which governments are to do by protecting us from those who seek to take our rights away from us); and that just as civil governments may not lawfully deprive The People of their God-given Rights and Liberties, neither may private persons or businesses; and
WHEREAS, for the State or any local government to impose lock-downs, mandate social distancing, order the closures of churches and selected businesses, and impose limitations on crowd sizes, would unlawfully restrict the Rights of The People to freely assemble; and that in the State of Ohio, such would violate Article I, Sections 1 and 3 of the Declarations of Rights set forth in the State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, for the state or local governments to cooperate with the unconstitutional federal agency known as the “Center for Disease Control and Prevention”, in its unlawful and tyrannical plan to incarcerate in internment (concentration) camps, Citizens against their wills, would unlawfully deprive the Citizens of Ohio of their Rights of free association and free assembly; and would also trespass on their Immunities against civil government’s control of their persons within the meaning of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and would also deprive Ohio Citizens of life, liberty and property without due process of law, also in violation of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
For the state or local government to mandate the wearing of face masks also violates the God-given Right of Personal Liberty.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That all acts of the federal government described hereinabove in Part II are unconstitutional and are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.
2. That all acts of State and local governments described hereinabove in Part III would also be unconstitutional and unauthoritative, void, and of no force; and that this body [identify whether it’s the State legislature or a County or municipal governmental body] will vigorously oppose all such unlawful acts.
3. That this body intends to vigorously uphold the Right of the Citizens to be free from the requirement of forced injections, mask wearing, social distancing, lock-downs; and will not permit Ohio Citizens to be relocated against their wills to the internment (concentration) camps now being planned by the unconstitutional federal agency known as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
It is so RESOLVED, this ________ day of _____________, 2021.
Signatures, etc.
Endnote:
1 This is a draft Resolution suggested by me for consideration by State and local governments – I used Ohio to illustrate that States must consult their own State Constitutions in addition to our federal Constitution.
Share this:
August 24, 2021 Posted by Publius Huldah | Blackstone's commentaries on the Laws of England, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, covid, covid virus, COVID-19 scam, due process clause, privileges and immunities | Blackstone's commentaries on the Laws of England, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, covid, covid virus, COVID-19 scam, due process clause, privileges and immunities | 21 Comments