Connect with us

Opinions

An Article V convention of states would not destroy the Constitution

Published

on

Constitutional crisis!

This phrase is tossed around so flippantly nowadays that it’s lost all meaning. For a refresher, here’s the definition from God’s preferred source of truth, Wikipedia: “a constitutional crisis is a problem or conflict in the function of a government that the political constitution or other fundamental governing law is perceived to be unable to resolve.”

In other words, something so unpredictable that our Constitution simply isn’t prepared to handle it. Call me a cynic, but I can’t think of anything our Constitution hasn’t provided a mechanism for dealing with.

As such, I laugh at Leftists who lose their minds over the possibility of President Trump firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, as if this move would irrevocably establish Trump as Dictator of the United States (although I have to say, I’m a big fan of the acronym DOTUS).

But some on the Right are also guilty of these irrational doomsday ramblings on one topic in particular: an Article V Convention of States.

Article V of the Constitution specifies how the Constitution may be amended, whether at a federal or state level: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

Thus far, no Convention of States has ever been held and all 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Congress, but as many as 15 of those (including the Bill of Rights) can be traced to the threat that states would call to order a Convention of States and thereby craft amendments without the ratification of the federal legislature.

Yet some paranoid right-wingers are convinced that the result of an Article V Convention would be to dismantle our Constitution and draft a new one out of whole cloth — a constitutional crisis!

I have a great deal of respect for some of these people, but on this topic, I find them utterly silly.

How would such an unprecedented upending of American law occur? What evidence is there to suggest that state legislators even want to do such a thing, let alone that it would be plausible?

States tend to lean Republican, and Republicans at state levels tend to be more conservative. There are more than twice as many Republican governors in the Union as Democratic, and Republicans control both chambers in 32 state legislatures (plus Nebraska’s single chamber).

Even then, they fall short of the 38 states necessary for a three-fourths majority, so even Democrats have no reason to fear a runaway Republican convention.

Again, I ask, in what universe will a majority Republican Convention of States vote to abolish the Constitution? I have my gripes with the GOP, but I would never go full tinfoil.

The most commonly cited objective of a modern convention would be to pursue a balanced budget amendment. States tend to be far more fiscally responsible — even California recognizes that it can’t afford Medicaid-for-all, something federally elected Senator Bernie Sanders won’t shut up about.

Congress obviously holds the power of the purse, but do we really trust them to keep the buttons clamped without an outside check?

I’m old enough to remember last week’s omnibus, so I’m gonna say no.

Moreover, how can we trigger a constitutional crisis by invoking a power specifically granted by the Constitution? It’s an absolute paradox, tantamount to saying that using the electoral college rather than the popular vote would cause a constitutional crisis, or that we can never impeach any president ever because such would result in a constitutional crisis. It’s literally written into the Constitution.

We the People have been atrocious in holding our government accountable. We have shamelessly neglected our enumerated checks and balances while loudly complaining from the sidelines that the system is broken and that nobody listens to us.

“We need to bring power back to the states, but also a Convention of States would destroy the Constitution.”

This attitude is senseless, overdramatic, and antithetical to constitutional conservatism. It is pure silliness.

We have never called a Convention of States, we have never successfully impeached a president (including one who imprisoned 120,000 Japanese-Americans based solely on their ethnicity without due process), and we have only once impeached a federal judge.

Don’t complain about federal tyranny if you’re unwilling to enforce the constitutional measures afforded to you to push it back.

There is no constitutional crisis. We have a common sense crisis.


Richie Angel is the Editor at Large of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards, Co-Host of The New Guards Podcast, lifelong fan of the Anaheim Ducks, and proud Hufflepuff. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in English from Brigham Young University in 2017. One day later, his wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Richie is a constitutional conservative and doesn't see any compassion in violating other people's rights.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
14 Comments

14 Comments

  1. Bill Walker

    April 1, 2018 at 3:19 pm

    You can read more details about an Article V Convention at http://www.foavc.org. The site presents the applications filed by the states plus all relevant public record about a convention. It also discusses the real reason a convention has never been held.

  2. Shawn Meehan

    April 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm

    Richie, you are terribly misinformed. I’ve spent four years nearly full time studying Article V. There is no such thing as a “convention of states” in the Constitution. Article V provides for “a convention for proposing amendments” This is called by Congress, not the states and Congress controls it no matter the propaganda COS spouts. (Footnotes 1,2)

    Article V’s second method was created for when the AUTHORIZED distribution of powers between the federal government and the states is out of balance and the federal refuses to give up power. Congress calling it was stuck in with the convention option. Those claiming Congress plays no role or is only ministerial aren’t telling the truth. Did you know George Mason was one of only three delegates refusing to sign the final draft Constitution? He didn’t get what he wanted, a purely state-controlled convention.

    One would have to contort common sense and reality to think that changing a document that is being disobeyed will suddenly make people obey that document. The Supreme Law of the Land is being disobeyed but convention promoters will guarantee rules for a convention will be obeyed.

    The Founders advised us to strengthen state governments, not to change the federal when they are ignoring their duty (Footnote 3)

    When a group doesn’t tell the truth to 137 state legislators from across the country about changing our federal Constitution, it should be very clear they are not worthy of being anyplace near that Constitution: https://www.guardtheconstitution.com/2017/07/06/convention-of-states-falsifies-thomas-jeffersons-advice-2/20530

    Footnote 1) “And the few cases that have been asked to deal with issues comparable to the one now tendered to this Court have uniformly held questions as to compliance with Article V’s requirements are within the sole province of Congress and not the courts — in the language that has come to characterize such issues, they are political” (that is, nonjusticiable) questions.”
    — United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Wayne Wojtas, Defendant, No. 85 CR 48, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 611 F. Supp. 118; 1985 U.S. District. Lexis 19914, May 10, 1985

    Footnote 2) “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”
    — Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921)

    Footnote 3) Thomas Jefferson was clear: “Then it is important to strengthen the state governments: and as this CANNOT BE DONE BY ANY CHANGE IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for,) it must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government….”
    — Thomas Jefferson To Archibald Stuart written December 23, 1791

    • John De Herrera

      April 2, 2018 at 9:43 am

      It’s a right of the people to debate/propose amendments when Congress won’t, says Meehan, who then turns around and says, except in a convention. Meehan’s arguments are not only irrational but illogical. He is a typical example of an American who fails to comprehend what he thinks he’s talking about.

      • Shawn Meehan

        April 2, 2018 at 1:29 pm

        John De Herrera slanders my comments. The convention method of Article V was added for when states felt the authorized power distribution between them and the federal were out of balance. Advocates for an Article V convention claim the Constitution isn’t being obeyed, as do most anti-convention folks. We all agree that if the authorized distribution of powers were obeyed, we’d all be happy.

        John De Herrera claims my arguments, supported by footnotes, aren’t credible, yet, he offers no references. Notice John De Herrera doesn’t counter that Convention of States was deceptive with 137 state legislators from across the country. How could anyone trust our Constitution to the care of hucksters that either don’t know the truth and facts of the issue, or don’t tell the truth about it?

        As an Article V expert, I’m happy to stand my ground.

        • John De Herrera

          April 2, 2018 at 2:02 pm

          The convention clause of Article V was proposed and unanimously passed at the 1787 Convention, and then was used as the final argument in adopting the Constitution (Federalist 85), which to paraphrase Hamilton, said–if you Anti-Federalists are so afraid of this new document/government there is the provision whereby the states can formally propose amendments the Congress fails to. That’s why it exists, to formally discuss change when change is needed and Congress fails to respond. All the Article V Convention does is formalize discussion about amendment language. It’s like a national town hall, and then all the delegates go home, and the ratification process begins. To think 38 states in a huge, regionalized country like ours will agree to shooting ourselves in the foot is both irrational and illogical.

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 2:28 pm

            Again, John De Herrera fails to respond to documented facts, effectively conceding the points.

            Madison’s Journal of the 1787 in fact documents that the Article V convention option was not unanimous. It was noted as passed “nem. con” which means without objection (meaning in parliamentary procedure that not everyone in the room voted). Those that actually check the record of 15 Sept. 1787 will learn there were SEVEN votes after that vote, including one to propose removing the entire thing. No parliamentarian would call that unanimous.

            John De Herrera displays a profound contempt for the words of the Founders. Federalist 85 contains the following: “…For my own part I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers” This is course means as I stated above the organization / distribution of government, not the massing of power.

            Actually, states do not propose amendments, the convention does and this has been discussed by constitutional scholars. Further, Federalist 85 doesn’t mention “change” or such, merely where states think amendments are needed to redistribute powers and Congress doesn’t agree. It is well documented that an Article V convention can not be topic limited:

            “Because no amending convention has ever occurred, an important question is whether a convention can be limited in scope, either to a particular proposal or within a particular subject. While most calls for amending conventions in the nineteenth century were general, the modern trend is to call for limited conventions. Some scholars maintain that such attempts violate Article V and are therefore void.”
            — Spalding, Matthew; Edwin Meese; David F. Forte (2005-11-07). The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (p. 266). Regnery Publishing, Inc.

            “Writing at the height of debate over the 1980s campaign for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced budget amendment, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger asserted that the Framers deliberately sought to provide a means of amending the Constitution that is insulated from excessive influence by either the state legislatures, or by Congress.”
            — Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, pp. 1623-1640.

            His view of the convention’s authority is among the most expansive advanced by commentators on the Article V Convention: …any new constitutional convention must have the authority to study, debate, and submit to the states for ratification whatever amendments it considers appropriate (emphasis added). According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases, notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons by which it was called:
            — Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, p. 1624.

            “If the legislatures of thirty-four states request Congress to call a general constitutional convention, Congress has a constitutional duty to summon such a convention. If those thirty-four states recommend in their applications that the convention consider only a particular subject, Congress still must call a convention and leave to the convention the ultimate determination of the agenda and the nature of the amendments it may choose to propose.”
            — Walter E. Dellinger, “The Recurring Question of the ‘Limited’ Constitutional Convention,” Yale Law Journal, volume 88, issue 8, July 1979, p. 1624.

            More recently, Michael Stokes Paulsen invoked original intent and the founders’ understanding of such a gathering. Asserting that they would have considered a “convention” to be a body that enjoyed broad powers, similar to the Constitutional Convention itself, he suggests: “Convention” had a familiar … public meaning in 1787. It referred to a deliberative political body representing the people, as it were, “out of doors.” Representatives or delegates to such a convention might well operate to some extent pursuant to “instructions” of the people thus represented, but a convention was not a pass-through or a cipher, but rather an agency ― a deliberative political body.”
            — Michael Stokes Paulsen, “How to Count to Thirty-Four: The Constitutional Case for a Constitutional Convention,”Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, volume 34, issue 3, 2011, p. 842.

            “As a rule, the Constitution speaks in general terms, leaving Congress to deal with subsidiary matters of detail as the public interests and changing conditions may require, and Article V is no exception to the rule.”
            — Dillon v. Gloss 256 U.S. 368 (1921)

            Perhaps the most assertive expression of the open or general convention argument centers on the doctrine of “conventional sovereignty:”According to this theory, a convention is, in effect, a premier assembly of the people, a representative body charged by the people with the duty of framing the basic law of the land, for which purpose there devolves upon it all the power which the people themselves possess. In short, that for the particular business of amending and revising our Constitution, the convention is possessed of sovereign powers and therefore is supreme to all other ”Government branches or agencies.”
            — Brickfield, Problems Relating to a Federal Constitutional Convention, 16.

            “Constitutional scholar Charles Black offered emphatic support of this viewpoint: “I believe that, in Article V, the words ‘a Convention for proposing such amendments’ mean ‘a convention for proposing such amendments as that convention decides to propose.”
            — Charles Black, “Amending the Constitution: A Letter to a Congressman,” Yale Law Journal, volume 82, number 2, December 1972, p. 199.

            “In fact, he went on to assert that limited conventions would be constitutionally impermissible for the reason that no language is found in Article V that authorizes them: It (Article V) implies that Congress cannot be obligated, no matter how many States ask for it, to summon a convention for the limited purposed of dealing with electoral apportionment alone, and that such a convention would have no constitutional standing at all.”
            — Black, “Amending the Constitution: A Letter to a Congressman,” p. 199.

            “When delegates are presented with a choice of writing a new constitution or submitting a number of amendments to the existing document, they have exhibited a desire to become part of history by framing a new constitution.” – Russell Caplan in Constitutional Brinkmanship

            “Congress’s inability to limit the scope of a convention suggests that a limited convention, even if requested by the States is not permissible.”
            — James Kenneth Rogers, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30]

            “What about a runaway convention? Yes, it is true that once you assemble a convention that states have called, they can do anything
            they want.”
            — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, on the steps of the Capitol in Richmond on Jan. 17, 2011

            ”There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose’.”
            — Chief Justice Warren Burger Letter to Phyllis Shafley

            “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like the agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ “
            — Chief Justice Warren Burger

            Barry Goldwater said: “[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]…We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue.”

            U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, writing an op-ed piece in the Miami Herald in 1986 wrote: A few people have asked, “Why not another constitutional convention?” … One of the most serious problems Article V poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting out wholesale changes to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single-issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well-being. And the one quote I will never forget because I was on the University of Maryland’s campus at the time it was made was that of Professor Christopher Brown, University of Maryland School of Law, who wrote in 1991 in response to the call for a constitutional convention to write a balanced budget amendment: “After 34 states have issued their call, Congress must call ‘a convention for proposing amendments.’ In my view the plurality of ‘amendments’ opens the door to constitutional change far beyond merely requiring a balanced federal budget.”

          • John De Herrera

            April 2, 2018 at 3:33 pm

            So if the Article V Convention can in your view, “runaway” where is it going to run to? There’s no way 75%+ are going to agree to it. Your fears are irrational and you’re standing in the way of our right to alter/abolish a thoroughly corrupt government. Thanks Meehan.

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 3:44 pm

            I didn’t use the word “runaway.”

            I thank John De Herrera for agreeing with the facts of history and my arguments by failing to even attempt to dispute them.

          • John De Herrera

            April 2, 2018 at 3:54 pm

            You posted a quote with the “runaway” argument. So I ask again, where is the convention going to run to?

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 4:28 pm

            Those are quotes from the authors. They can handle your requests. You are in no position to demand any explanations. I have offered numerous facts and you haven’t rebutted. Make your argument. I will not debate myself.

          • John De Herrera

            April 2, 2018 at 4:45 pm

            Anti-Conventionists profess that if the Article V Convention is called by the Congress of the USA, that something might happen that none of us alive today want, i.e. a “runaway convention” as Justice Goldberg above terms it. If that’s your position, or whatever position opposing the Article V Convention, my rebuttal is: where will it run to, and how will it become a grave danger to we the living? What idea, as amendment language, is going to do away with our republic as we currently know it, and get roughly seven out of ten Americans NATIONWIDE to agree with it?

          • Shawn Meehan

            April 2, 2018 at 5:57 pm

            You assume that the ratification in Article V will be complied with. Precedent from the 1787 Convention clearly provides that it may not. Since an Article V convention is clearly NOT the solution the Founders offered and the fact that a convention could be considered a sovereign gathering of the people, the constraints of Article V may be thrown off. This has happened in several state conventions in American history.

            Unbridled Powers of Delegates in a Constitutional Convention
            Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. Following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Constitutional Convention. Legal “experts” have asserted that it would be highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn findings from several separate and concurring State Supreme Courts. The foot-note numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made.

            These citations, along with the letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm#.WKZQmhLyu00) clearly and concisely tell us that if a Constitutional Convention were to be opened, for whatever “alleged” purpose, there would be no controlling the outcome. State Legislators have been lulled into a false sense of safety by assurances that there is no danger in a Con-Con because, “of course, you would never ratify a bad amendment or a total rewrite of the Constitution”. What the State Legislators are NOT told – and probably 99% of them are unaware of the fact – is that there are two modes of ratifying an amendment, and the U.S. Congress decides which that would be. In other words, state’s legislatures can be bypassed in favor of ratifying conventions.

            * The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1)
            * and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2)
            * They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3)
            * and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4)
            * and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)
            Citations:
            (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
            (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
            (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
            (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
            (5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149

  3. John De Herrera

    April 2, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    All law is composed of two things: letter and spirit. The spirit of the Constitution is for the people to govern themselves, not slim ball politicians and special interests. The letter embodies the spirit–“Congress shall call a convention”–and the states have long ago satisfied the legal requirement. Thus, to be Anti-Conventionist today, based on congressional records, is to be Anti-Constitutionalist. As Marbury v. Madison said, the Constitution is black and white, no equivocation, you are either for it or against it.

    • Shawn Meehan

      April 2, 2018 at 6:02 pm

      Well, John De Herrera has finally revealed himself to be a conspiracy theorist worthy of being ignored. States are fully able to rescind resolutions applying for Article V, just as my Nevada did last year with a resolution I initiated (SJR 10) and which passed four unanimous votes. We have not yet reached the requirement for 34 active petitions and I believe the court has dismissed and laughed at your leader Mr. Walker’s thesis of such.

      You make a really dumb argument. So, because Article V is in the Constitution, we must call a convention? Declaring war is in there also, must we declare war? Where do we start a new war? Come on, it’s in there. Impeachment is in there. Any federal officer. Why aren’t you advocating for 30 or 40 impeachments?

      When you get some education about the facts, you should let us know. Until then, you shouldn’t continue making yourself look all a fool.

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Remember what’s important in life

Published

on

We all deserve forgiveness, the benefit of the doubt, and need to be reminded of what really matters from time to time. When you encounter someone who does something rude or mean or bad, avoid labeling them as a rude or bad person. Instead, give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just having a bad day/week/year and they are in a place where they have forgotten about what really matters in this life.

That it’s not about wealth and acquiring stuff. It’s about relationships and how we spend our time together. It’s about lifting each other up.

Have you ever gotten into that rut, where you have been hyper-focused on your job, or your hobby, or self-improvement? You were doing really well! You’ve gotten ahead, acquired a lot of great, new things; you make more money now, and you’ve gotten really good at whatever it is you were working on.

But then… You watch a show, a movie, maybe hear a song or a sermon, or read a story about humanity and how short this life is; About how we treat each other when we are trying to acquire too much… and it’s never enough; it’s never big enough; it never satisfies us.

But when you get that message again from that show… You recognize it, and you wake up. You stand up in the room, and you look around, and you see that all over the room everyone else still has their heads down. And very few are standing with you. But you see it now, and you say to yourself, “Why was I so focused on that? That doesn’t matter! My kids are growing up! My parents are aging, my grandparents dying. And I’ve been missing all of it… For what? For a house that’s 1000 sq. feet bigger? For a car that can drive a little faster?”

We all get sidetracked and stuck on this misleading path. That’s why we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt. Try not to label people as “bad guy” just because they did something once or twice, and recognize that people deserve forgiveness, and just need to be woken up again.

Remind them. Remind me when I forget. Please. It’s about Love. Family. Friends. Relationships.

Sell everything you own if it’s blinding you. Buy experiences instead- Experiences that you can share with one another. Hug. Laugh. Cry. Touch. Share. And remember. Remember what it’s all about.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

A Memo to the Liberty Grabbers of the Left from the Pro-Liberty Right.

Published

on

By

Hat Tip: Nazis Are Socialists (Meso)

A dose of reality for you Leftists opposing freedom on behalf of the gun owners of America.

Seeing that we gun owners been your rhetorical punching bag for several weeks, there are a few things we would like to point out to you folks opposed to the most essential of Liberties. You’ve spent all manner of airtime talking down to us, dictating what we ‘need’ with regard to our basic human rights. So now it is time for you to listen to a couple of brutal truths in the matter. These aren’t going to be ‘politically correct’, by any means, but such is usually not the case with cold hard reality.

From your ever so self laudatory language, you Liberty grabbers on the Left like to think of yourselves as noble warriors, out there ‘changing the world’ for the ‘Common good’ [Gemeinnutz in the German vernacular]. Fighting for Socialister. Social ‘Justice’ and all manner of flowery folderol [Cue mournful violin music]. Yes, you think of yourselves as ‘sacrificing’ for the ‘the children*’ no matter what that entails. Whether it’s all manner of fame on Youtube or Facebook, to endless praise from your echo chamber, there are no limits as to your willingness to signal your virtue to everyone.
*Unborn children excluded

Well, sorry to break it to you, but in the words of the Marchers: “We call BS!”

The fact is there is nothing more selfish than demanding that others be deprived of their ‘essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety’ for yourselves. You want others to sacrifice their freedom for some mythical gains in your perceived security. It would be one thing for you to give up your Liberty, but that isn’t the case is it? You are marching to demand that the basic human rights of others be stripped from them, that is self-centred in the extreme.

“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves” ― Abraham Lincoln

Empathy is a very important human quality, so perhaps you should consider giving up some of your essential liberties to understand what is at stake for those of us on the Pro-Liberty side of the aisle. Maybe you should demand that you be stripped of your First amendment rights? Or perhaps Liberty Grabbers groups should be licensed before they can demand that others be deprived of their rights?

Oh, what’s that you say? You have a Constitutional right to free-speech or freedom of the press? That those rights ‘Shall not be infringed’? [to coin a phrase] Or that the slightest amount will lead to a slippery slope towards the loss of them all. Welcome to our world, where every time a Leftist lunatic decides to go on a mass murder spree, our Constitutional rights are suddenly on the chopping block. With it just being a question of how much of those rights we’re going to lose – if not everything.

Can we dictate what you ‘need’ in exercising your Rights?

Can we demand that you justify the keeping of your liberties? Can we arbitrarily decree that certain modes of speech are ‘Militaristic’ in style? Do you really ‘need’ to appear on the Tele 30 times a day? Do you really need a ‘high capacity’ smart phone? Do you really need to fire off 5 tweets in a minute just to kill off a basic human right?

Hypocrisy on parade: Liberty Grabbers have guns to protect themselves while denying that right to others.

Please note that the people in the Liberty Grabber movement you idolize are also complete hypocrites in that while they work tirelessly to take away our property and our Liberty, they are safe and secure surrounded by ARMED security. Yes, think about it, the people who rail against guns have no problem being protected by them. Were they to be true to their words, they would disarm their security details. If Citibank and Bank of America didn’t care to be hypocrites they would dismiss their armed security and announce it to the world. Oh, they have to deal with threats? So do the rest of us – and yet they want to make everyone else vulnerable to those threats while they stay safe and secure.

Here’s a hard dose of reality for you: We gun owners protect everyone, even you Liberty Grabbers.

The truth is that while you uselessly virtue signal your inestimable magnanimity, it is those of us on the Pro-liberty side who work to keep you people safe. This may come as a shock, but if you live in one of the states or localities that value Liberty, you are around concealed weapons every time you go out in public. Yes, you might find this to be too scary to think about, but every day you are protected by the deterrence effect of ordinary folks just like you [aside from their cherishing freedom that is] carrying around *Gasp* Firearms hidden from view.

Consequently, you don’t know who might be carrying a gun…. and neither do the criminals. Thus the value of an armed citizenry. They don’t know who may have the means to defend themselves, so they don’t know who to victimize, therefore everyone is protected.

The exception being The “Gun-Free” zone, that vestige of the Utopian fantasy world of the Left. Most mass shootings take place where the innocent are denied their basic human Liberty of self-defence. So what does that mean for you Leftists of the so-called “Party of Science”? It means that your absurd idea that a sign will stop a mass murder results in dead children. That is what you want everywhere, how does that even reach the threshold of rationality?

If you aren’t going to thank us for keeping you safe, could you at least leave us alone?

So why is all of this important? Because the people you have demonisd for weeks are the ones keeping you safe. Those you label as terrorist, splattered in blood are the people providing for your security. How is that for irony?

  • We’re the ones who take the time endure the draconian hurdles put in the way of our basic human rights.
  • We’re the ones who take the time to select the proper firearm and holster to carry concealed out in public.
  • We’re the ones who practice with our weapons in case an emergency arises.
  • We’re the ones who carry a cellphone and extra magazines for that potential emergency.
  • And We’re the ones who will most likely have to deal myriad legal problem and legal fees for merely protecting ourselves, our families and even you people should it be necessary.

Now, we don’t expect you people to grateful for this protection you are afforded. Goodness knows you wouldn’t lower yourself to talk to those of us on the Pro-liberty side. But could you at least acknowledge the effort and perhaps stop obsessing over taking away our Liberty that keeps you safe?

 

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Trump went full Globalist First with Syria strikes

Published

on

President Trump should redirect aid to Guatemala from nations who voted against the Jerusalem move

Too often we find ourselves in emotive cycles. For instance, mass shootings are used by the anti-gun crowd as a means to motivate a legislative attack on our Second Amendment. Likewise, chemical weapon incidences in Syria are similarly used to create an emotionally based reason to use military action. We are quick to assume that the Assad regime was responsible for the previous high profile uses of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. This started under the Obama administration with his famous “Red Line” blunder in which he declared any use of chemical warfare unacceptable even if against the Al Qaeda affiliates or the JV team, ISIS. Trump, in contrast, followed through on Obama’s blunders, when the cycle repeated itself again.

A little over a year ago there was a chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, in a province most openly ruled by the rebrandings of Al Qaeda. This incident led to Trump ordering airstrikes on Syria betraying his campaign promise of staying out of Syria. This attack was carried out under false and premature pretenses. This is an instance where the intelligence community says one thing but evidence says another. But before you defend the intelligence community’s infallibility, look back to how they insisted the DNC was hacked despite the lack of evidence, specifically from the server, that a hack took place. And so the Russian Farce Began. Theodore Postol, a professor at MIT and former DoD scientific adviser pointed out the staged nature of the evidence regarding sarin gas attack in 2017. He ultimately showed that the crater and canister that is credited with the chemical weapons rocket was detonated from the ground, not the air. Read more about his findings here. The point is: the emotive response automatically assumes that the Assad regime carried out the attack. There have been many chemical weapons uses in the war, but only about three or four have gotten media notoriety. I don’t deny that the Syrian Arab Army has used chemical weapons ever, but I seriously doubt the nonstrategic use of chemical weapons that occurred in these notorious incidences. Though as described below, this incident had a strategic outcome.

With the most recent incidence, guilt has already been pointed at Assad restarting the cycle. I don’t care to defend Assad in this instance. I do however want to call Trump and his supporters out on their own support of globalism. So let’s assume Assad carried out this attack. Let’s assume Assad gassed Al Qaeda territories a day after launching a new offensive and because he did, the terrorists surrendered. Why should we care?

The easiest reason to dismiss is that striking Assad is beneficial to America’s Middle Eastern strategy. This would imply that there has been a strategy in the Middle East. But even if we soften strategy to “interests” striking Assad is counter to America’s interest. Al Qaeda has lost in Syria and is clinging to certain besieged areas. In the particular area of this incident the group that was beseiged was called the “Army of Islam”. How does weakening the army that has done more to fight Al Qaeda and ISIS than the US in the last decade benefit Americans or their interests? If Hezbollah, a terror organization sponsored and allied with Assad, were alleged to have been responsible, this would be a different story. But instead, we target the one belligerent in the Syrian Civil War that can actually stabilize the region, even if slowly.

You could then claim about civilian deaths which have been a constant theme in this war on all sides. Most recently, this year Turkey has taken to slaughtering Kurds in its land grab of Northern Syria, but Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care about the death toll there. Nor have other brutalities in Syria been enough for Trump or Obama, to act. Assad, along with every belligerent, has killed civilians in this war. Why are these deaths special? News flash they aren’t. A person is a person is a person. A person dies whether being shot, stabbed or gassed. The people who died in the gas attack were no more important than the people who died in gunfire or strategic bombing. Every person has a moral worth that is irrelevant to their cause of death. So this isn’t about civilian deaths. This is about chemical weapons in and of themselves.

So now that we established Trump attacked Syria because of chemical weapons, now lets dive in to why he’s a globalist for it. Trump wanted to send a message that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. But why is it unacceptable? What makes chemical weapons different than bullets and shells. Why is gas morally reprehensible and incendiary bombs permissible? There is no logical way to construct an argument that chemical weapons are impermissible while nuclear, radiological, and biological aren’t (though biological weapons are difficult if not impossible to control thus having little strategic use.) If we are to accept that weapons of mass destruction are morally wrong to ever use, then it would be inconsistent to not favor disarmament. Furthermore as Americans we would have to admit that the use of atomic bombs was a immoral decision if we do insist that the use of WMDs is morally impermissible.

I refuse to accept these premises and rewrite history in a globalist politically correct way. So why are chemical weapons such a big deal? The short answer is that the UN says they are a big deal. After World War 1, the League of Nations sought to outlaw chemical warfare and war in general. The ladder was ineffective. Though chemical weapons didn’t see as much light in World War 2, more extreme weapons did. Since its founding, the UN has sought to control what weapons a country can have. In addition to chemical weapons, there’s the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty. Article V of the NPT requires disarmament which nuclear nations have thus far refused. Some nuclear nations tolerate this treaty because they don’t want have-nots to get nukes. Others such as Israel, India, and Pakistan recognize that the UN wants to place limitations on their self defense capabilities. UN limitations on chemical weapons are similarly globalist schemes for the UN to encroach on a nation’s sovereignty. Chemical weapon use is wrong according to international law, not in and of themselves. As Ben Shapiro noted:

One of the arguments for intervention in Syria is that if we do nothing to reimpose the Obama red line in Syria, chemical weapons use will become more common. That’s probably true. But it’s also true that if someone attacked Americans with chemical weapons, we would end them. Furthermore, not all chemical weapons are the same: some are indeed weapons of mass destruction, but others are not as dangerous in scope as cluster bombs. Do the 500,000 dead in Syria’s civil war care whether they were killed by Russian cluster bombs or sarin gas?

So when Trump attacked Syria, he wasn’t responding to a threat nor can we really say it was about the people killed. He was upholding the UN’s power which Syria defied. This is where Trump goes full globalist. Never go full globalist. To repeat myself: he had the United State’s military attack another country because of a violation of international law! In the United States, international law has very little power here. This was established in Medellin v Texas. The globalist community cares not about American interests. Do we not remember when the UN condemned America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? It was allowed by Congress for decades. The UN would want nothing more than for America to relinquish its power.

Globalist First

All of Trump’s talk of nationalism is really a farce. He had our military act on a globalist cause, not “America First”. Trump may talk tough on tariffs, but globalism isn’t really about economics, its about sovereignty. Being “tough” on China doesn’t benefit America First. Instead these tariffs are now the biggest  threat to our economic security coming out of the Great Recession. Bombing Syria doesn’t benefit America first. It benefits Turkey and their terrorists. It benefits the UN. Trump wasted military resources doing the UN’s bidding instead of making America or its allies safer. Trump upheld UN norms instead of his lawful duties as defined by Congress and the US Constitution.

In an America First foreign policy, we would have seen if the President had gone through America first. Congress. Instead Trump relied on a thumbs up which he got from the globalist community.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.