I have expressed my thoughts before on an Article V Convention, along with my reservations for such a convention based on the only historical precedent we have, the 1787 Constitutional Convention. As one who is a common man among men (yes, I have no reputation to uphold), I merely provide the facts, express some commentary and leave others to their own conclusions. After all, if you don't come to your own convictions, you will never hold them nor keep them. With that said, I've recently come across something that I think needs to be exposed as deception from the Convention of States crowd as evidenced by a 2011 conference titled "Conference on the Constitutional Convention," in which COS founder Mark Meckler was a part.
Understand, I'm not attempting to know the motives of those I make mention of. God knows the heart. I do not presume to know their motives. I just look at who they are aligning themselves with and what they have advanced. That is my only basis for knowing anything here.
As you will note in my earlier article where I expressed my concerns over an Article V convention, I consider that there are among those in the pro-Article V Convention patriots who are simply fed up and want to do something to stop an out of control federal government. I agree with their sentiments, but not their approach. However, there are those also within the pro-Article V Convention movement who are claiming this is not a constitutional convention and yet they appear to be at odds with the founder of COA. With that in mind, please allow me to demonstrate this. Beware, I'm not giving my opinion here. I'm going to give you facts. In fact, I'm going to give you their own words.
As contributor Publius Huldah was attacked this past weekend for something someone else did over thirty years ago this past weekend, I began to look a bit further into the matter. First, let me say that PH's arguments have never been refuted though I gave both Michael Farris and Nick Dranias opportunity to do so. They were obviously submitted, but, in my opinion, offered no clear refutation of the points PH was making, which it seems most people understood.
Now, let's have a little comment from those promoting a Convention of States, shall we?
First, understand that I have a friend (yes, I have spoken to him and consider him a friend, even though he is a supporter of an Article V Convention) whom I debated over the issue in September 2015 in Gastonia, NC who claims that an Article V Convention is not a Constitutional Convention. Mike wrote:
Now, Mike is clearly stating, as he did in our debate, that an Article V Convention is not a constitutional convention. Keep that in mind as he represents the Convention of States.
Let me go further. Rachel Alexander at Town Hall wrote, "The Goldwater Institute, considered the premiere state-based right-leaning think tank in the country, has published numerous papers explaining why an Article V Amendments convention to consider the National Debt Relief Amendment should not be feared. Nick Dranias, Director of the Goldwater Institute's Center for Constitutional Government, wrote an essay entitled 'Runaway Convention Myth Debunked,' in which he relayed the history of Article V, declaring, 'Despite claims made to the contrary, the truth is that Article V does not provide authority for a foundational constitutional convention. The Founders specifically and repeatedly rejected efforts to substitute the current Article V language to allow for a foundational constitutional convention to be called.'"
Nick is saying an Article V Convention is not a constitutional convention, just like Mike did. Yet, Nick was also a participant at the Conference on the Constitutional Convention.
Rob Natelson, who penned and article titled "The Myth of a Runaway Amendments Convention," has written, "'Will the prescribed convention procedures actually work?' They already have. In 1861, in an effort to prevent the Civil War, a convention of the states was called to propose a constitutional amendment to Congress."
The problem with Natelson's statement and what an Article V Convention actually is is found in his other article where he writes, "This gathering differed from an Article V convention primarily in that it made its proposal to Congress rather than to the states. In most other respects, it was a blueprint for how an Article V convention would conduct itself."
In other words, the "they already have" has not actually happened. Meckler's "Convention of States" may have happened, but an Article V convention has never occurred. Yet, Natelson, in his wordsmithing is trying to make it appear that is the case. It is not.
Mark Meckler, founder of Tea Party Patriots, of which I confess there have been many good articles produced, is the founder of Convention of States. All of his proponents adamantly proclaim that an Article V Convention is not a Constitutional Convention. I ask every one of those people the simple question, why, in 2011, did Mark Meckler, Nick Dranias and others join together to talk about an Article V Convention in what was called a Conference on the Constitutional Convention at Harvard University? Furthermore, why did they not want organizations there like the John Birch Society there if they were interested in a free and open discussion?
In fact, Mark Meckler is seen on the front of the Constitutional Convention Conference's front page, along with Lawrence Lessig. By the way, even Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks was a part of this conference.
So, the founder of a Convention of States, which is being pushed by the aforementioned people, plus such well known people are Sarah Palin, Mark Levin and others actually attended a Convention on a Constitutional Convention in 2011, but doesn't like it when people refer to it as a Con-Con now. Interesting, isn't it?
What's even more telling is that when you go to ConConCon.org, you see a picture of Mark Meckler and Larry Lessig on the front page and the opening theme is "Democracy in America is stalled." What's the problem with that people? America is not a democracy. She is a Republic. Democracy is in contract with that of the current Constitution. While the current constitution is clear, Article 6, Section 4, Clause 1:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,….
I simply point out that the terminology is getting smeared all over the place here. From Article V Convention to Constitutional Convention, from Democracy to Republic, this is how socialists speak, not conservatives.
Now, Meckler claims to be a conservative, yet he heads up the first video on a site called Living Room Conversations. What's so interesting about that is that Meckler believes that we need to join with people like Van Jones…. Yes, Communist Van Jones, who is also a part of Living Room Conversations. Just take a look at their lineup here. Yet, you, conservatives, and more importantly Christians, are to believe what these people tell you who integrate with some of America's enemies. Van Jones was released by the Obama administration because of his communism being exposed for goodness sakes!
However, it's what Meckler's bio reads at Living Room Conversations that should give us pause. He writes, I am enthusiastic champion for Living Room Conversations because over the last several years I've come to realize that the largest divide in this country is not between the citizens of one party or another, but between the citizens and the Ruling Elite in Washington, DC and the state capitols. Those in power want us to hate each other, neighbor against neighbor, city against city and state against state. They like conservatives to hate liberals, Democrats to hate Republicans and they want us hating each other over any issue where they can foment discord. They do this because it is profitable for them. While the majority of Americans say that Washington, DC and government in general are broken, the majority of those in office think things are working well because they gain money, power and prestige from the division they sow. The status quo does not serve the people of this country, and Living Room Conversations is a critical step in helping people to see that they have a lot in common with those they've been told by the politicians and the media that they should hate. Only by learning to respect each other, and work together in this way is real change possible." (Emphasis mine)
Now, understand that what much of Meckler says is absolutely true, but it's that little caveat about state capitols and DC being together and his push for a Convention of States I want you to keep in the back of your mind. Why? Because he is appealing to the states for an Article V Convention.
If you scroll down just two people at Living Room Conversations, you'll see Van Jones and you can read what he has to say. Consider that Living Room conversations employees the Delphi technique in order to build consensus.
To say that we need to work with people like Van Jones over what the law of the land is like me needing to have a conversation with the devil as to how I'm to follow Christ!
Once you pick up on these little things that are going on, then you can understand why these people (some who are openly associating with communists today) would go after Publius Huldah, a woman that receives no compensation for her work and is eager to go, speak and even debate the issues. My friends, we would be wise to be cautious about those who push forward an Article V Convention.
I have had another well-known conservative tell me, "You're either with big government or you're with the solution." When I told him that if it were up to me, I would side with the anti-federalists and remove power from centralization in DC, he didn't know what to say. That should tell you how much "conservatives" are stuck on big government.
So, the question I offer is this, "Are you a slave to the very people and central government that are the problem to the point that you are unwilling to rid yourself of it and bring all governing to the local level or are you still thinking you can write words that criminals, who have demonstrated that they won't obey them, will continue to disregard?"
If that is the case, why then are you not pushing for your state, the creator of the federal government, to nullify the usurpation of power of its creature rather than opening a can of worms labeled a "Convention of States"?
If you are of the opinion that the COS is the most effective way to deter usurpation of a government that ignores the current writing of the Constitution, perhaps you are actually the one for big government… either that are you are sorely naive. As for me, I'll side with anti-federalist Patrick Henry in declaring my desire to be out from under all tyranny, whether it brands itself as "republican," "democracy" or "socialism." I just want to be left alone to raise my family, hold onto my property and the fruits of my labor without anyone attempting to pry it from me by means of their oligarchy or legalized theft. I'm also wary of organizations who are willing to work alongside those whose ideology is at odds with both Christianity and/or America.
As a final note, I would encourage anyone interested in the debate to simply take a listen and look at the valuable information found in the following video. I consider it to be quite eye opening and informative.
UPDATE: Within a matter of months of the posting of this article, Conconcon.org was pulled and something else erected in its place. Was this an attempt to cover what was exposed? I don't know, but you can see snapshots of the site at Wayback Machine by clicking here and notice how they are promoting "democracy."Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.