Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God's approval. Thomas S. Monson
I needed to take a break from the series Enemies on the left, False Friends on the Right, to tell you a bit about the compromise I've seen in the August primaries in Tennessee. I'm negatively referred to as a purist, and have been told that no politician is perfect. Obviously, this is true to a point, but exchanging one devil we know for a devil we don't know may be more dangerous in the long run.
"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.....Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but WILL STILL PURSUE, with new vigor, approximately the SAME BASIC POLICIES."
Did you understand that statement? "Instead the two parties should be almost identical so the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." No shift in policy no matter who is elected....and the electorate doesn't thoroughly vet the candidates.
Our Congressional Representative for the 2nd District in East Tennessee is John J. (Jimmy) Duncan, Jr., who filled the vacancy caused by the death of his father, and has been our representative since 1988. In other words, he is a lifetime politician. He has voted well many times, but he has also voted improperly many times. Against the wishes of his constituents, he voted for NAFTA, and for Goals 2000, yet he voted against the Iraq war and against funding it. He is close to our neo-conservative corporate fascist Governor, Bill Haslam, and is the Chairman of Senator Lamar Alexander's 2014 re-election campaign. The governor and the rest of the neo-con congress criminals from Tennessee are backing Lamar, along with the junior senator from our State, Bob Corker, and our Lt. Governor, Ron Ramsey.
Today I received a flyer for Lamar with an endorsement by National Right to Life...another compromise as far as I'm concerned. Lamar met his wife, Leslee "Honey" Buhler, at a Hill staff softball game. She was working for Senator John Tower, the man instrumental in getting neo-con Trotskyite, John McCain elected to the House. In the early years of their marriage, she raised their four children while doing volunteer work, specifically for Planned Parenthood. She was also a member of the board of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (NPR and PBS). So, obviously, National Right to Life compromises on their endorsements. Looking at Lamar's voting record, reveals he is certainly no conservative and never has been. See my five part article on Lamar, the Senator backed by John J. Duncan.
Congressman Duncan is a career politician who chums with all the "good ole' boys," and who needs to retire and go home...it's become a family business, and the founders did not intend for service to be lifetime.
Congressman Duncan's Challenger
The challenger who is running against Jimmy Duncan in the primary is Jason Zachary. Here are the issues he states on his website. Please note, he states nothing regarding pro-life, nothing about UN Agenda 21, nothing regarding illegal aliens, nothing regarding the environmentalists, etc., and nothing regarding the push for a Constitutional Convention. It is a very generic website.
I met Zachary at a meeting held in a local tire store featuring pro-Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) proponent, Louis Marin of I Am American. At that meeting, the proponents of this horrid Article V convention (the same old, same old excuse they used in the early 80s) would not allow attorney Publius Huldah to speak and tell the audience how dangerous this would be for our Constitution. Obviously presenting the other side was not in the best interests of these Constitutional Convention proponents. See Publius's articles on the dangers of the BBA, here and here.
After the presentation promoting the BBA, we had another room waiting for Publius Huldah to speak and explain the dangers of the BBA. Do you think challenger Jason Zachary would drive half a mile to hear Publius Huldah explain why the BBA was so dangerous? Of course not, he had been persuaded by fast talking charlatans, and his excuse was "a lack of time."
I wrote to Jason Zachary several times, and sent him any number of articles and explanations as to the dangers of the BBA and an Article V Convention. Here is what he wrote to me:
Good morning. I hope you are well.
My email traffic has reached the point where I'm unable to read all emails in detail that are sent to me. That being stated, I have not thoroughly reviewed the below but did skim.
My thoughts on Article V, I fully support the act to "call a Convention for proposing Amendments" as stated in Article V, if it is only a Convention to propose Amendments and NOT a Constitutional Convention. Our founders gave this to us to check the federal government.
That point stated, I do NOT support the current proposal for a Constitutional Convention. The opening line actually states that it is a call for a Constitutional Convention. This was not the intent of Article V. The intent was a Convention to propose Amendments. We open Pandora's box and risk the transformation of the Constitution, if we open this convention.
Thanks for the info below. I'll read in more detail in the days to come.
Jason Zachary for Congress
Please note that Mr. Zachary states he is against the "current proposal" for a Constitutional Convention. He tells all the constituents who ask him that he is against a Constitutional Convention. In reality, if he truly understood what he was proposing, he would understand that what he wants will end up in a full blown Convention. What he doesn't tell them is that he "fully supports the act to 'call a Convention for proposing Amendments' as stated in Article V, if it is only a Convention to propose Amendments and not a Constitutional Convention."
I wrote Mr. Zachary any number of times and told him this method has never been used in the history of America because of the dangers. He obviously failed to read or to understand what was sent to him. If he has no time to read information before he's elected and to listen to his constituents who have studied this issue for decades, then why would we think he'd listen to us after he's elected? I begged people to educate him, but all they would do is ask him if he was for a Constitutional Convention and he'd answer that he was not, when in reality he is for one.
Here's what we know and what Publius Huldah has said several times:
I have already proven – several times – and provided hyperlinks – showing that our convention of 1787 was called by the Continental Congress "for the sole and express purpose" of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation."
The Articles of Confederation required all of the then 13 States to ratify Amendments before they became effective.
Yet, at the convention, the delegates ignored their instructions and wrote an entirely new Constitution with a different method of ratification! Only 9 of the 13 States were required to ratify the new Constitution before it became effective. See, Art. VII, clause 1, U.S. Constitution.
If we have an Article V convention, there is nothing to stop the delegates from coming up with a new Constitution with a new method of ratification – such as, a Referendum called by the President.
Here is the New States Constitution written by the Ford Foundation and waiting in the wings for this renewed opportunity of another Constitutional Convention. It eliminates all our God given unalienable rights documented by our founders in the 1787 Constitution. It is a foul 22 page document that gives all control to the federal government.
Despite the many drawbacks to Congressman Duncan, I cannot "compromise" my belief that should an Article V Convention happen, all other battles we fight will be null and void. Once the 1787 Constitution is gone, so will be our right to stand against the destruction of our liberties and freedoms.
Others have decided to risk it and have decided to back someone who will not do the research necessary to understand the dangers of any Constitutional Convention. Here's what one local Republican wrote to me:
So you have given up before the fight even starts! How many people will have to be convinced that presently don't believe if the BBA is not to pass. I would say about 90% or more at least. As for current legislators probably 98% or more support BBA. If you have given up on this youngster who hasn't even voted for a Bill how are you figuring to convert the seasoned veteran legislators? I'm weary of the discussion. I tried and that's all I can do. Good luck finding that purist legislator out there who agrees with you. I think Barry Goldwater died long ago. Hard line tactics will not bring success when you are the 1 percent but that won't stop you from trying I fully realize that. It's just a lost cause before you ever get out of the starting block. Too bad. Our differences are on tactics.
The person who wrote this to me allegedly understands the dangers of a Con-Con, but chooses to ignore same. Yes, I've given up on this "youngster" who is a grown man. We don't need to add another Congressman or Senator who will vote for a BBA which will legalize the unconstitutional spending our Congress is doing! On the same hand, should a BBA pass...guess what!? If the Congress can't balance the budget, they just raise taxes on us every time until they do balance it. And of course 98% of the Congress wants the BBA, it allows them to spend on anything they want and to tax us to death.
Jason Zachary's support of a Convention for proposing amendments is a death knell to our founders' Constitution, and the BBA he so ardently backs not only changes our Constitution, but bleeds the American taxpayer dry.
Knowing this, I simply cannot compromise.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.