Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown October 19, 1781

On this day in 1781, British General Charles Cornwallis formally surrenders 8,000 British soldiers and seamen to a French and American force at Yorktown, Virginia, bringing the American Revolution to a close.

Previously, Cornwallis had driven General George Washington’s Patriot forces out of New Jersey in 1776, and led his Recoats in victory over General Horatio Gates and the Patriots at Camden, South Carolina, in 1780. His subsequent invasion of North Carolina was less successful, however, and in April 1781, he led his weary and battered troops toward the Virginia coast, where he could maintain seaborne lines of communication with the large British army of General Henry Clinton in New York City. After conducting a series of raids against towns and plantations in Virginia, Cornwallis settled in Yorktown in August. The British immediately began fortifying the town and the adjacent promontory of Gloucester Point across the York River

Washington instructed the Marquis de Lafayette, who was in Virginia with an American army of around 5,000 men, to block Cornwallis’ escape from Yorktown by land. In the meantime, Washington’s 2,500 troops in New York were joined by a French army of 4,000 men under the Count de Rochambeau. Washington and Rochambeau made plans to attack Cornwallis with the assistance of a large French fleet under the Count de Grasse, and on August 21 they crossed the Hudson River to march south to Yorktown. Covering 200 miles in 15 days, the allied force reached the head of Chesapeake Bay in early September.

Meanwhile, a British fleet under Admiral Thomas Graves failed to break French naval superiority at the Battle of Virginia Capes on September 5, denying Cornwallis his expected reinforcements. Beginning September 14, de Grasse transported Washington and de Rochambeau’s men down the Chesapeake to Virginia, where they joined Lafayette and completed the encirclement of Yorktown on September 28. De Grasse landed another 3,000 French troops carried by his fleet. During the first two weeks of October, the 14,000 Franco-American troops gradually overcame the fortified British positions with the aid of de Grasse’s warships. A large British fleet carrying 7,000 men set out to rescue Cornwallis, but it was too late.

On October 19, General Cornwallis surrendered 7,087 officers and men, 900 seamen, 144 cannons, 15 galleys, a frigate and 30 transport ships. Pleading illness, he did not attend the surrender ceremony, but his second-in-command, General Charles O’Hara, carried Cornwallis’ sword to the American and French commanders. As the British and Hessian troops marched out to surrender, the British band played the song “The World Turned Upside Down.”

Although the war persisted on the high seas and in other theaters, the Patriot victory at Yorktown effectively ended fighting in the American colonies. Peace negotiations began in 1782, and on September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed, formally recognizing the United States as a free and independent nation after eight years of war.

  This is from This Day in History:




Runaway Article V Convention – Is there a threat? by Ben L. Tracey

 Should we have an Article V Convention of States in order to restore the original purpose of our government? According to some, such as constitutional lawyer and conservative radio personality Mark Levin, this is the only way to restore the original intent of our nation’s founding fathers. However, regardless of Levin’s good intentions, and I believe his willful disregard to the danger, the answer is no. Why? Because of exactly what happened during the last convention. These actions were never declared illegitimate and reversed and thus created a legal precedent. Regardless of anyone’s good intentions, no one, not even constitutional scholars, can predict what could happen if we had a new Convention of States.
 This author doesn’t take issue with Mark Levin for promoting a constitutional Convention of States. If one does eventually occur, everything he hopes to accomplish might also occur. That would be an ideal situation. The issue is with Mark Levin downplaying the dangers that a man of his credentials must know exists. Impeccable credentials don’t make you right all of the time. For every PhD or JD who makes an argument, I can find another PhD or JD that takes the opposite position. The highest goal of most constitutional lawyers is to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It should go without saying that when the stakes are the highest, half will lose their cases.
Understanding what happened in 1787 requires us to define what it is to have a constitutional government. You do not have to have a single document called The Constitution in order to be considered a constitutional government. If you do have a single document, it doesn’t have to be called The Constitution. Our parent nation, Great Britain, has no single document called a constitution, yet is still considered a Constitutional Monarchy. A constitutional government is simply a government that has a higher set of laws, principles, and conventions in which all members of that society are equally bound. This constitution is generally difficult to change. Great Britain’s constitution actually consists of many documents such as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights (English), the Petition of Right, and many more.
 In the United States, we have had two codified constitutions. Our first constitution was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.This was a law in which all original thirteen states and their citizens were bound. Our second constitution is simply called the Constitution of the United States of America. Under both constitutions there is a mechanism for amending, or changing the relevant constitution.
 Under the original Articles of Confederation, there is Article XIII:
“Every state shall abide by the determinations of the United States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards, confirmed by the legislatures of every state.”
Under the current Constitution of the United States, there is Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Actually, there are many pros and cons to having a Convention of States as defined under Article V. The biggest reason to have a convention is to add amendments for such things as congressional term limits and the ability to recall our representatives. Both of these capabilities existed under the Articles of Confederation. These are amendments that Congress would unlikely propose under the common way of amending the Constitution. However, there is a sound reason not to have a Convention of States. Regardless of claims to the contrary by Mark Levin and others, there is a very real and undeniable possibility of a runaway convention. This is exactly what happened in 1787.
 Perhaps the best way of presenting both sides of the argument is to present the argument for having a Convention of States and then to present the counter argument that rebuts that argument.
1. Our government has gotten away from the original intent of our founding fathers and the only way to bring us back to the concept of limited government is to amend the Constitution.
Rebuttal: It is true that many of our founding fathers would be appalled by how far we have drifted away from this concept of limited government, at least at the federal level. Their first love was for the states in which they resided. However, to say they wanted limited government is a little misleading. The U.S. Constitution ceded only some of the many states sovereignty to the federal government. However, the many states reserved for themselves what is called police powers. Police powers consist of safety, morality, welfare, and health. To make absolutely sure they retained these powers; they embodied them in the 10th Amendment. A state’s police power is generally limited by two things. It is limited by its own constitution, which is typically modeled on the U.S. Constitution but is far more extensive. It is also limited when the courts have determined these laws are in violation of a personal right or a violation of other constitutional principles.
Another misleading perception enhanced by many in conservative talk radio is that of a power hungry congress usurping the authority of the many states. This is only partially true. Representatives represent their constituents. As a nation we began drifting away from our principles even before the days of Teddy Roosevelt, which can be seen in such acts as The Sherman Antitrust Act. However, during the Howard Taft, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson days, this trend accelerated. Socialism was sweeping the globe and progressivism, which I think of as socialism lite, took hold in both major parties in the United States. This is what caused the Republican Party to splinter, creating the upstart and short lived Bull Moose Party.
The fear was that individual states were susceptible to falling under the influence of large corporations that were growing in size, capabilities, and wealth. These corporations were getting rich off of the growing interstate commerce, which was spurred on by the Industrial Revolution and the improvement in communications and transportation. Many people wanted a more powerful national government which they believed would be more capable of resisting these influences. In short, they wanted a counterbalance to large corporations.
It should be noted that no constitutional amendment proposals that would have opposed these popular interests would have succeeded at the time. Thus a proposed constitutional amendment is not necessarily a cure-all as some might propose. Instead, a little education might go a long way.
 The courts resisted these political pressures for many years just as the Federalist Papers had envisioned. Their jurisprudence was based in our original Lockean principles right up until Franklin Delaware Roosevelt attempted to stack the court. In a democratic form of governance, the machinery for applying the brakes against the temporary passions of the masses (tyranny) can only hold out for so long. If the passions outlast the brakes, the masses eventually get their way.
It should also be noted that the Supreme Court is part of the federal government. As such there is a potential conflict of interest when it comes to the SCOTUS applying the brakes against an encroaching federal government. As federal laws become more pervasive, affecting more and more individuals, the decisions of the Supreme Court also affect more and more people.
However, not all brakes are created equal. The best brake against any encroachment from the powers that be, are from those with a vested counter interest to protect. This brake was supposed to come from the Senate which was originally elected by the many states congress. It is not the people, not the courts, not the President, and certainly not the U.S. Congress that has a vested interest in stopping the growing power of the federal government, it is the many states. When the 17th Amendment was enacted, the brakes were effectively removed. Some have argued that this was the beginning of mob rule.
The last point is, simply because there is a rule against a certain action doesn’t mean those at the top of the political spectrum will follow it. How many times has a president thumbed his nose at the Constitution when signing an executive order? How many times has a statute been thrown out by the courts for trampling on a constitutional right? I suspect some members of the congress and possibly at least one president have not even bothered to read the Constitution. The only real way to expect compliance with the rules is for an informed electorate to hold politicians accountable at the polls. Of course this doesn’t work if the politician breaks the rules in the way the electorate wants. This is not only true of our current constitution, it was also true of the Articles of Confederation. The Philadelphia Convention was only the last convention out of a series of conventions. At the time, conventions of the states were unconstitutional unless authorized by the Confederation Congress.
Articles of Confederation, Article VI, Section 2:
“No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever, between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.”
Before the Philadelphia (constitutional) Convention, there was the Mt. Vernon Conference and the Annapolis Convention. These were convened for the purpose of working out issues between the states over trade outside of the deliberations of the Confederation Congress. This was another threat out of a plethora of threats to the prestige and authority of the Confederation Congress. If Rodney Dangerfield were a historical figure and an elected representative, he would have served in the Confederation Congress. These conventions, or states conferences were illegal under the Articles of Confederation unless approved by the Confederation Congress. Neither of them was. Even George Washington referred to them as “irregular,” which only goes to show that euphemisms have been used for a very long time. The Philadelphia Convention was reluctantly approved by the Confederation Congress on February 21, 1787, only after six states had already appointed their delegations. Then the Confederation Congress tightened the parameters on what could be negotiated.  It called for:
“Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.”
The emphasis is mine. “Sole and Express,” means “only this.” Even as our current Congress and current courts find ways to get around the wording in our Constitution, how can we be sure they won’t find a way to pervert the intent of any new amendments in the future? This disregard has been going on ever since we have had a constitution as history illustrates. Simply adding more words to the Constitution does not guarantee that the intent of any such additions will be followed by a future congress, executive branch, or the courts.
2. There is no real danger. These are only proposals for new amendments. Any changes to the Constitution must be approved by three fourths of the states. If the Convention of States goes off the rails and recommends a bad amendment, they will not be able to get three fourths of the states to ratify it.
Rebuttal: Who says it will require three fourths of the states to ratify anything? Under our first constitution, it required one-hundred percent of the states to ratify any changes. It also said that all of “. . . the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state . . .” This is the constitution that was in effect during the entire Philadelphia Convention. With Rhode Island boycotting the conference, referred to as “Rogue Island” by some, it became apparent that at least Rhode Island wasn’t going to ratify anything. This is one of the reasons the convention tossed out the Articles of Confederation for a completely new constitution. The new constitution only required nine out of thirteen states to switch it on and three-fourths of the states to change anything thereafter. Notice, this ratification criteria came from Article V and Article VII of the new constitution, not from the Articles of Confederation.
This argument is the most popular argument used by those who want an Article V Convention of States. It is a good argument only if the convention does not toss out the Constitution altogether. This is what conservatives such as Mark Levin hope to achieve. However, this same argument also works against those wishing to amend the constitution regardless of which amendment process they use. If they are successful, then three-fourths of the states still need to ratify the proposed amendments at some future date. In other words, their proposed amendments may or may not ultimately get ratified. There are no guarantees. However, those who would want to start over with a new constitution have the legal and historical precedent in their favor to make throwing out the old constitution a viable option. In this case, the ratification process of three-fourths of the states would almost certainly go out the same window as the Constitution. We would be in a  whole new ballgame with completely new rules.
 3. The wording in Article V of the U.S. Constitution does not provide a legal mechanism to toss out our current Constitution. It is only provides two ways of amending the Constitution. One of those ways is to convene a Convention of States which does not require presidential or congressional approval.
Rebuttal: It is true that Article V of the United States Constitution does not have any language providing the legal framework in which you can replace the current constitution with another constitution, but why would it? The language in the Constitution only provides the legal framework for our current government. Any constitution that we want to endure should allow for changes to be made as needed or it could become as unworkable as the Articles of Confederation. It should always allow for amendments, changes, or as some might claim, fixes. However, it wouldn’t have any language describing how you dump it. Why even bother to write a constitution if you planned on dumping it later?
Just as our current Constitution does not provide for replacement, neither did the Articles of Confederation provide for replacement. In fact the Articles of Confederation stated that the union under that constitution was perpetual. The Articles of Confederation clearly stated that it could only be changed when all of the states were in full agreement. Throwing the whole constitution out is a pretty big change. A one-hundred percent agreement is something that obviously did not happen, at least not right away.
After the ratification of the new constitution by New Hampshire, the ninth state, the new constitution was switched on, becoming the law of the land in those states that ratified it. The remaining states still operating under the Articles of Confederation were left in legal limbo as they should not have been able to reach a quorum. On a practical matter, the Confederation Congress still provided a limited transition function, accomplishing a few things extra-constitutionally, such as setting the date when the new constitution’s Electoral College would be selected. The last meeting of the Confederation Congress was held on March 2, 1789. The ardent anti-federalist Philip Pell from New York was the sole attendee. He adjourned the meeting sine die and dropped out of state and national politics. By definition, the very act of replacing one constitution for another is extra-constitutional.
 4. When appointing and sending a delegation to a Convention of States, states can forbid their delegates from doing anything other than proposing amendments to the current constitution.
Rebuttal: This is true; the states can forbid an action. However, according to precedent, the delegates don’t have to listen.  Here is some of the wording from the twelve states that sent representatives to Philadelphia:
“. . . to join with them [other delegates from other states] in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution [Articles of Confederation] adequate to the exigencies of the Union . . .”
“. . . for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Union as to trade and other important objects, and of devising such further provisions as shall appear necessary to render the Constitution [Articles of Confederation] of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof.”
“. . . of revising the Foederal Constitution [Articles of Confederation], for the purpose of making such alterations and amendments as the exigencies of our public affairs require . . .”
“. . . to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remove the defects of our federal union . . .”
“. . . to join with them in devising, deliberating on, and discussing, such Alterations and further Provisions, as may be necessary to render the Foederal Constitution [Articles of Confederation] adequate to the Exigencies of the Union . . .”
“. . . in devising and discussing all such alterations and farther provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution [Articles of Confederation] adequate to the exigencies of the union . . .”
Authorizes the convention in Philadelphia with the limited purpose of “. . . sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . .”
“. . . for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . . render the federal constitution [Articles of Confederation] adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union . . .”
“. . . for the sole & express purpose of revising the articles of Confederation . . .” Further amended to include:  “And it is further Resolved, that the Said Delegates on the part of this Commonwealth be, and they are hereby instructed not to accede to any alterations or additions that may be proposed to be made in the present Articles of Confederation, which may appear to them, not to consist with the true republican Spirit and Genius of the Said Confederation: and particularly that they by no means interfere with the fifth of the Said Articles which provides, ‘for the annual election of Delegates in Congress, with a power reserved to each State to recal its Delegates, or any of them within the Year & to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year – And which also provides, that no person shall be capable of being a Delegate for more than three years in any term of six years, or being a Delegate shall be capable of holding any Office under the United States for which he or any other for his benefit, receives any salary, fees, or emolument of any kind . . .’”
“. . . authorised and impowered in devising and discussing all such alterations, clauses, articles and provisions as may be thought necessary to render the federal constitution [Articles of Confederation] entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states . . . will effectually provide for the exigencies of the union.” 
“. . . for the sole & express Purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation . . . authorized and empowered . . . to discuss upon such Alterations and Provisions, agreeable to the general Principles of Republican Government, as they shall think proper, to render the federal Constitution [Articles of Confederation] adequate to the Exigencies of Government, and the Preservation of the Union . . .”
“. . . for the purpose of revising the federal system, and to join with them in considering such alterations, and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution [Articles of Confederation] adequate to the exigencies of  the union . . .”
“ . . . to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of our federal union; and to procure, and secure, the enlarged purposes which it was intended to effect . . .”
Rhode Island did not send representatives. They later claimed their state required an election to send representatives for such a purpose as proposing alterations to a constitution. However, they were the only state not to require a state level constitutional convention in order to ratify the new constitution.
Ten states directed their delegations to discuss ways of improving the Articles of Confederation with one state associating these changes to “trade” and “other important objects.” Three states forbade their delegations from doing anything but modifying the Articles of Confederation with the verbiage “sole and express.” Of these three, not only did Massachusetts forbid any negotiations other than modifying the Articles of Confederation, they specifically forbade changes that were later incorporated into the new constitution. The Confederation Congress forbade the delegates from doing anything other than modifying the Articles of Confederation, which is their explicit right under the Articles of Confederation.
The North Carolina and New Hampshire delegations were the only delegations that appeared to have the latitude they needed to create a new constitution. Their states directed them to fix the union, not specifically to fix the constitution. For the Philadelphia Convention to do what they did was at best unauthorized and at worst, blatantly illegal. One of the reasons they succeeded was due to the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of the convention. The declared reason for this secrecy was to allow all members the ability to explore all options without outside recrimination, or in the exact words, “licentious publications.” They certainly did.
5. This government does not have the same problems the government had in 1788. In 1788 the Articles of Confederation government was insolvent. It had a large foreign debt and stood vulnerable to invasion. A single belligerent state could cause a war. It could not tax. It did not have the sole authority to coin a uniform currency. There was no independent federal judiciary. It could not make standardized rules for interstate and international commerce. There was no national army or navy and it did not possess the authority to draft soldiers or sailors. The country stood at risk of invasion from Britain in the north and Spain in the west and southeast. It could not put down insurrections. It could not enforce its own laws. It was difficult to pass federal laws and virtually impossible to amend the Articles of Confederation. The union was dying and a radical solution was necessary to save it. Considering the differences between then and now, tossing out a fixable constitution is highly unlikely.
Rebuttal: While all of this is true, you wouldn’t believe it if you listened to the rhetoric from those who believe the Constitution is an old dusty and obsolete document standing in everyone’s way. While it might be unlikely that a convention would toss out the current constitution, it is not impossible. The unchallenged precedent exists. While most people would like to tweak what we have, there is a large group of people who would like to do much more. It is a progressive utopian dream of many to get rid of federalism altogether, reducing the semi-sovereignty of the many states to mere administrative districts of a larger and more capable national government.
The precedence set in 1787 and maintained for 230 years gives these dreamers the legitimacy to throw out our current constitution in favor of a far more progressive document. All they need is enough delegates to go along. The ratification criteria for any new constitution would be whatever was decided in the convention. Should such an event occur, it would be highly unlikely the ratification process would remain the three fourths of the states that exist now. It could be as simple as a majority vote in a national referendum. In fact, in recent times this is the preferred way of legitimizing a new constitution as seen in places such as Egypt and Turkey.
6. The Philadelphia Convention was held in secrecy. It could be required that a new Convention of States be open and transparent. If the many states observed the beginning of a runaway convention, they could put the brakes on it, even recalling their delegation.
Rebuttal: It is true that the Philadelphia Convention was held in secrecy. Some have speculated that they never could have proposed a completely new constitution if the convention was open. The many states that were already uneasy about the convention would almost certainly have exerted any influence they could muster to get the convention back on track or shut it down completely. However, we have seen how things don’t always go the way we want or expect.
The Obama Administration promised the most transparent administration ever. Very few people would argue this transparency actually occurred. The legislative construction of the Affordable Care Act was supposed to be transparent. Instead the bill’s evolving text was arguably buried in congressional committees and cabals, with only bits and pieces coming to light until it was ready for a vote. This is when Nancy Pelosi made her famous quote, “But we have to pass the [Senate] bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” The Patriot Act was advertised to the public as giving the government the ability to intercept messages between domestic residents (mostly U.S. citizens) and known terrorists living abroad. Somehow this morphed into a “haystack” of information that lowly technicians, outside of the permissions given by the U.S. FISA Court, could get their hands on. When the Affordable Care Act was challenged in the SCOTUS, most experts I spoke with felt certain it would be struck down. How could anyone be penalized for not engaging in commerce? Even the President glumly made comments indicating this likely outcome. However, the Roberts Court simply changed the word “penalty” to the word “tax” and said Congress has the constitutional authority to tax.
Regardless of any promised transparency, many things can still go wrong. While there are non-objectionable deliberations on television and computer screens, there may be other actions taken behind the scenes. How will the many states recall their delegations if anything goes wrong and how long will it take? Each state may have different procedures for doing this. If it is by a resolution, then how long will it take to build a consensus if they can build one at all? How can we be sure our state representatives will act in a way we would like them to act? Will enough states recall their delegations to drop the convention below the necessary quorum required to function? If the convention carries the same character as the U.S. Congress, that of a federal deliberative body, will the states even be able to recall their delegations for the same reason we cannot recall members of Congress or place term limits on them? Will any challenges to a Convention of States end up in the court, allowing the convention even more time to finish their efforts? Depending on how quickly a Convention of States goes off the rails and how fast it moves thereafter, there may be little time for anyone to do anything at all. The thing to consider is that we don’t know how a Convention of States will go off the rails or how we will be able to respond to any and all circumstances. We can, however, safely assume that those who want a runaway convention have already conceived of cleaver ways to make this happen. Once again, they have history in their favor.
7. It couldn’t happen. No one would support throwing out our constitution. You can try to force me to go along with such a farce, but bring lots of guns because I’ll certainly have mine.
Rebuttal: It always seems to eventually get to this last argument. Our inception as a nation is steeped in bloody revolution. Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” This kind of sentiment still endures.
A new constitution becomes an issue of legitimacy. We must remember that each of us represent a single voice in a larger chorus that exceeds 320 million people. We tend to discuss our values with others who share those same values. As a result, we often forget that this is a country that is almost equally split between those wanting the government to do more, and those wanting the government to do less. If there are enough people in a democratic form of government who want a new constitution in order to accomplish their vision for America, then this becomes a legitimate effort.
In a democratic form of government, legitimacy is manifested through the perceptions of the majority, or possibly even a highly vocal minority. The last two presidents were elected by what their opponents might describe as populism running amuck. Should a constitutional convention of states replace the old constitution with a new constitution, and then a majority of people in the United States vote yes in a national referendum, it would be virtually impossible to roll back. The old constitution would be null and void. With the precedence of history and a majority popular vote, we would have a legitimate new government and there is nothing anyone could do to change it short of civil war.
In summary, there are at least twelve short arguments against an Article V Convention of States which are as follows:
    • The reason for the ratification of our current constitution is because of the wording in our current constitution, not the constitution that was in effect during the convention that recommended our current constitution.
    • The replacement of constitutions was illegal under the constitution that was in effect while it was being replaced. It referred to the union under its authority as perpetual. It said all states must inviolably follow all of the articles that made up the constitution (Articles of Confederation). It said all of the states would have to be in full agreement to change anything in the constitution (Articles of Confederation), let alone replace it.
    • The actions taken by the delegations in Philadelphia were unauthorized by all the states in attendance and prohibited by at least three of these states and the Confederation Congress.
    • The very continuance of our current constitution provides the proof of legitimacy regarding the actions taken during the Philadelphia Convention. These actions set the legal precedence of replacing one constitution for another. This precedence happened despite the language in the constitution that was in effect at the time of the convention, the directives of the congress, and the directives of the states that sent the delegations. One cannot declare the actions taken during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 illegal without also declaring our current constitution illegal. Even as we cannot declare the actions in Philadelphia illegal, we cannot declare similar actions that may occur in a modern Convention of States illegal either.
    • One cannot depend on the courts to nullify any actions taken by a runaway convention, especially if the courts have an active role to play under the terms of a new government.
    • The reason for the legitimacy of our current constitution is because enough people recognize it as being legitimate, not because of any documents or court proceedings that make it legitimate. A Constitutional Republic is also called a Representative Democracy. In any form of Democracy, something becomes legitimate when enough people say it is legitimate.
    • It should go without saying that you cannot use any legal wording in our current constitution to ward off replacement of the same constitution if it has been replaced. As mentioned, the ability to replace a constitution is based in a sense of legitimacy by the people in a democratic form of government, not by any legalese that has arguably been made null and void. Replacing a constitution is by definition extra-constitutional.
    • Even if a new Convention of States is transparent, the interests wanting to replace the Constitution may move quicker than the opposition simply due to the legalese and federal structure of our government. There is a multitude of moving parts in the machinery.
    • Simply getting proposed amendments to our current constitution doesn’t guarantee ratification of these amendments. The general public must exert enough will to cause three-fourths of the many states to ratify the proposed amendments under the terms of our current constitution.
    • Any wording in the Constitution, current or future is meaningless if the government is not held accountable by the electorate.
    • One cannot provide every possible safeguard against a runaway convention as no one can predict exactly how a convention will runaway. For every safeguard put in place, there is a way around it.
  • Considering the very real and present danger of a runaway convention and the almost certain civil unrest that would follow in its wake, perhaps alternatives such as taking back our educational institutions and mass media outlets would be a better solution. If the status quo is allowed to continue, then the number of those who believe the government should do more will continue to grow while the number of those who believe government should do less will continue to shrink. Forcing the majority of people to accept the values of the few through the machinery of federalism, if possible, will only last for a season. Eventually the majority will get their way. This is the real reason why we are where we are today. The government doing more things for more people is what a majority of people, in one way or another, have wanted for a very long time. Sometimes the truth hurts, but the only long-term solution is to convince the majority of people that the original vision of limited government was and is, the best kind of government.
Regardless of what some conservative lawyers say, the risk of a run-away convention resulting in a catastrophe is not zero. No one can deny the precedence of the past or the inability to put in place adequate safeguards for any and all events that could go wrong. So you decide, is the risk worth it?
WORTH TAKING  8 Minutes to hear Bill Still’s take on the Con Con:
The new Constitutional Convention push rears its ugly head again. Delegate Bob Marshall’s explanation: …..

A Report on the Massachusetts Hearing on the Article V Convention

     The Massachusetts Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing Thursday October 12 from 2:00 – to 5:30 PM on a number of bills and resolutions including two resolutions applying for an Article V Convention (S 379 Wolf PAC and S 401 COS). We sent out two E-mail blasts on the subject, and thanks to Brad Wyatt, the Massachusetts Campaign for Liberty also did an E-mail blast.
      I attended the hearing and was accompanied by Tom Moor, and Dave Vieira. Dave did an excellent job in his testimony. The Left had a good contingent of people on hand supporting S 379 from “Massachusetts We the People.” The current director of Wolf PAC and one of their attorneys was also on hand to testify. The main sponsor of the Wolf PAC resolution, Carmine Gentile, testified. His testimony and most of the other supporters of S 379 were more interested in overturning the “Citizens United” decision, and said nothing about the Article V convention. The Wolf PAC attorney was the only one that referenced the Article V Convention. He raised the same old easily refuted arguments. The only person on hand, to my knowledge, supporting the COS resolution WAS  full time lobbyist for COS from Maine.  
      While we were greatly outnumbered, I think we held our own. Most of those that testified on behalf of S 379 gave emotional appeals. The only one that actually discussed the convention was the Wolf PAC attorney, and I was able to refute his testimony. The only question that was raised by a member of the committee concerned a “runaway” convention.” The Wolf PAC attorney said it couldn’t happen. I refuted him by pointing out that I have the Wolf PAC founder Cenk Uygur and Professor Larry Lessig on video both wishing for a runaway convention. Here is the link to the short video clip:…
      The Wolf PAC resolution had 40 sponsors, and the COS resolution has two. Two years ago, the Wolf PAC resolution had over 80, and twice as many supporters on hand at the hearing, but we still managed to kill it. While two years ago, the COS resolution had 8-10 sponsors and not one supporter to testify. Both resolutions died in committee.
    Thank you for all you do, and making Camp Constitutuon’s activities possible.
Hal Shurtleff
Director, Camp Constitution
12 March Ave.
West Roxbury, MA 02132

The Weekly Sam: The Benefits of Teaching History at Home

This is an article written by Sam Blumenfeld in the 1980s:

The other day I was having dinner at a friend’s house and was chatting with his
12-year-old daughter who attends a local public school. I asked her how she was doing,
and she told me that she hated school-not merely disliked schoo~ but hated it. I had
hoped that her parents would home-school her. But they just couldn’t do it. I told her I
thought I knew why she hated school-because it was boring. Yes, she replied. It was
boring. And then I said, “And you’re probably not learning much also.” She wanted to
know what I meant by that. So I asked her to name the first three wars that the United
States was involved with. She got the first one all right, the Revolutionary War. But the
only other war she could think of was the Civil War, and she had no idea when that took
The second war, I told her, was the one fought against the Barbary pirates of
North Africa who kidnapped Americans for ransom. An American invasion of
Tripolitania brought that war to a victorious end. My friend’s daughter had never heard
of that war. The fact is that most Americans have never heard of it. But the anthem of
the U.S. Marine Corps should remind us: “From the halls ofMontezuma, to the Shores of
Tripoli… ”
The third war was the War of 1812. She had never heard of that one either. She
had never heard of the Battle of New Orleans, or the burning of Washington by the
British, or Andrew Jackson, the hero of that war who later became our seventh President.
“But I know all about the Industrial Revolution,” she volunteered. It turned out
that her class had been studying the cotton mills ofNew England and how young girls
were being exploited by the mill owners who were rich and mean. So, at the age of 12,
she was already being indoctrinated to view factory owners as exploiters of poor young
She had heard ofEli Whitney and the cotton gin. But she had never heard of
Robert Fulton and the steamboat. In other words, the public schools were teaching
“social studies” not history. Their aim was to indoctrinate children in a pro-socialist view
of our history by emphasizing the meanness of capitalism.
But homeschoolers have the freedom to teach history as history and not as
propagandistic social studies. History is such a fascinating subject and can be studied in
so many different ways: chronologically, by reading biographies and autobiographies, by
unit studies, by concentrating on certain eras and events. The Civil War commands great
interest for many reasons. Thousands of books have been written about virtually every
aspect of that war. There are even organizations that stage mock battles of the Civil War,
with uniforms and weapons made to the exact specifications of the real things.
Every American should have a foundational knowledge of American history in
order to affirm one’s American identity and heritage. Our nation’s history is such a
remarkable story, so full of great and wonderful people, so vibrant with human endeavor
and enterprise, so stirring in its afftrmation of freedom and love of country, that it
behooves a home schooling parent to learn and teach history to one’s children as a means
of making sure that a child understands what it means to be an American.
Americans, and homeschoolers in particular, have a responsibility of transferring
to future generations the philosophy of our founding fathers, who sacrificed so much so
that we could enjoy the fruits of liberty. It is only through knowledge of history that we
can make sure that our free society continues to exist in decades ahead.
It is, of course, a tragedy that millions of young Americans will never learn
history in their public schools, which have betrayed the trust that parents have, over the
years, placed in them. But it is the opinion of this writer that government schools have
never been compatible with the principles of a free society in which parents have the
responsibility of educating their children in accordance with their own values and beliefs.
Prof. Benjamin Bloom, father of Outcome-Based Education, wrote in his famous
Taxonomy: “By educational objectives, we mean explicit formulations of the ways in
which students are expected to be changed by the educative process. That is, the ways in
which they will change in their thinking, their feelings, and their actions.”
Knowing how important it was to start indoctrinating children as early as
possible, Bloom wrote: “The evidence points out convincingly to the fact that age is a
factor operating against attempts to effect a complete or thorough-going reorganization of
attitudes and values …. The evidence collected thus far suggests that a single hour of
classroom activity under certain conditions may bring about a major reorganization in
cognitive as well as affective behaviors.”
Those are not the words of an educator who respects the values and beliefs of
parents whose children he is about to indoctrinate.

A link to the article from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives:


The Blumenfeld Archives

Convention of States adopts newspeak to sell the Con-Con by Judi Caler

October 7, 2017

Convention of States adopts newspeak to sell the Con-Con

By Judi Caler

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels


In the novel, “1984,” George Orwell’s unsettling prophecy of a totalitarian society, Newspeak was the official language of Oceania. It was devised to limit freedom of thought. New words were invented, undesirable words eliminated, and the remaining words redefined or limited in scope to further the Party’s ideology. If something can’t be said, it can’t be thought, making a diverging thought unthinkable.

So too, the Convention of States Project (COS) uses Newspeak to manipulate people into believing that the convention provided for by Article V of our Constitution is really a “convention of the states” that is controlled from start to finish by State Legislatures.

“Convention of the States” v. “Constitutional Convention”

On September 24-25, 2011, radical leftist professor Larry Lessig, who has ties to George Soros, and salesman Mark Meckler, who now heads COS, co-hosted Conference on the Constitutional Convention at Harvard. That conference kicked off the current push for the Left and the phony Right to work together to promote an Article V Convention.

But the Convention Lobby soon realized that conservatives had been schooled over previous decades by the John Birch Society and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum to recoil from an Article V convention, also known as a “constitutional convention” or “con-con,” because it could run amok and replace our existing Constitution.

And despite their attempt to win conservative support by focusing state Article V convention applications on supposedly “conservative” issues like a “balanced budget amendment” or “fiscal restraints,” convention proponents were met with resistance from those who understood that State Legislatures have no power to limit the scope of a convention to specific topics or amendments.1 The same ploy was tried and failed in the 1970s and 1980s for the same reason.2

What to do?

Shamelessly, Mark Meckler and his legal operatives turned to Newspeak. Attorney Rob Natelson, the Newspeak guru of the convention lobby, announced in a speech on September 16, 2010, that he was “going to put our concepts on ‘reset'”:
“I hope this is the last time I’ll say [the words] ‘constitutional convention.’… I often have made the mistake of calling it that, but it is a serious mistake because it causes people to misunderstand what the convention is all about. The Constitution gives the convention a specific name – a convention for proposing amendments – and I think we should call it that or perhaps an Article V convention, an amendments convention,or aconvention of the states.”

Thereafter, they adopted the term “convention of the states,” defined it as a convention totally controlled by State Legislators, and claimed that a “convention of states” was the same as an “Article V convention,” and different from a “constitutional convention” or a “con-con.”

As Meckler spins the narrative:
“A constitutional [or plenipotentiary] convention has only been held once in the entire history of the country set in 1787…. they can draft a new constitution from scratch….

“[But] This is an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments.’… They do not have supreme authority. They do not have the authority to redraft the entire [Constitution]…. So, an ‘Article V Convention of States for proposing amendments’ is a convention that is limited by the instructions from the States as to what they can deal with.” 4Common Sense

In Oldspeak – i.e., the real world of English grammar and common sense – “constitutional convention” and “Article V convention” are synonymous. Any convention dealing with drafting or amending a constitution is a constitutional convention.” Also, any convention provided for in a constitution is, by definition, a “constitutional convention.”

But in the Orwellian world of COS Newspeak, a “convention of the states” can’t run away, by definition!

That the Newspeak definition for “convention of the states” doesn’t exist in our founding documents doesn’t matter to the convention lobby. It serves to deceive legislators into thinking that an “Article V convention,” unlike a “constitutional convention,” can’t run away and secures legislators’ YES votes on con-con applications.

Recently in Michigan, 32 Representatives responded to a National Association of Gun Rights survey, saying they were opposed to an Article V Convention, most likely because they were concerned they would lose the Second Amendment at a con-con – a very real possibility. After being exposed to COS Newspeak, some of those same legislators decided they could simultaneously support COS legislation asking Congress to call a “convention of the states”!
“It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control,’ they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink'” – 1984, Part I, Chapter 3“Limit” in Newspeak means “expand,” as shown by amendments proposed by COS supporters. Our Constitution already limits the federal government to the enumerated powers. The amendments proposed by Mark Levin, Michael Farris, and the COS simulated convention would legalize powers the federal government has already usurped and strip States of existing powers and rights.

COS recently promoted itself as “the largest Article V grassroots organization…nationwide.” So, a “grassroots” organization in COS Newspeak is one bankrolled with millions of dollars from mega-billionaires! 5
“WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” – 1984, party slogans.Another word trick in COS Newspeak would replace “Delegate” with Commissioner.” A “delegate” is a representative who has power; but a “commissioner” is a person charged to manage some particular subject-matter and is controlled by his superiors. Accordingly, Meckler told Senators at a February 25, 2015, Nebraska committee hearing that they’ll direct their “commissioners” by text messaging during the convention because legally, commissioners are equivalent to hired insurance agents! 6

What COS Fails to Mention

COS operatives and their coterie of attorneys fail to mention that we have another founding document in addition to the Constitution. That document is the Declaration of Independence which preceded the Constitution.
“It would have been quite impossible to render [the Declaration of Independence] into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be…the single word CRIMETHINK.” – 1984,AppendixThe Declaration of Independence, paragraph 2, expresses our founding principles which are above the Constitution: that all men are created equal; that our Rights come from God; that the purpose of government is to secure those Rights; and that, if the government fails to secure our Rights, We the People have the Right “to alter or to abolish” our government and set up a new one.

The convention is the highest form of government, having more power than State Legislatures and Congress put together. So even though the Framers met in convention in 1787 for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation (AOC),” they had the inherent and legal right, as expressed by the Declaration of Independence, to write a new Constitution which created a new government. Moreover, they set a precedent by making the new Constitution easier to ratify than amendments to the AOC.

And with the words “We the People…,” they reaffirmed in our Constitution the founding principles written eleven years earlier. In fact, in Federalist 40, Madison justified writing the new Constitution, which was to replace the AOC, by citing the Declaration of Independence.7


Newspeak, invented by the convention lobby, is believed and repeated in State Capitols across America by too many Republican legislators who have set logic and truth aside to buy the false narrative. They believe that the solution to an overreaching federal government that has ignored our Constitution is to change our Constitution! And that an Article V convention called by Congress can’t possibly run away because it is just a “convention of the states” in Newspeak!

And shame on the heavily bankrolled, self-professed “conservatives” at COS, along with their team of attorneys, “constitutional scholars,” and lobbyists who risk our Constitution by selling a bill of goods to well-meaning and unsuspecting legislators. The same propaganda is used to fool ordinary citizens whom COS claims to “represent.”

A runaway convention can’t be prevented with Newspeak! Americans must educate themselves on this deception and be vigilant. Understand the real remedies our Framers said we must use to prevent federal overreach. Once a convention is called, it will be too late to stop a new Constitution with an easier mode of ratification from being imposed. Our existing Constitution and our Liberty hang in the balance.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.” – Thomas Jefferson to C. Yancey, 1816

End Notes

1 See Judge Van Sickle’s Article, Part IV,

2 “Constitutional Convention called Redux,” Part 4, Kelleigh Nelson 3-22-2013, para 9:

3The State-Application-and-Convention Method Of Amending The Constitution: The Founding Era Vision, Robert G. Natelson, See I (pp 9, 10).

4 Red Eye Radio, scroll to 7/6/17, Part 2 @ 51:25:

5 While we are unable to determine all the sources of the funding for Meckler’s group; the ultimate source of much of the funding for the push for an Article V convention is the Koch Brothers of Texas.

6Nebraska Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, 2-25-2015, Transcript pp. 47, 52:

7, para 15

© Judi Caler

Judi Caler

Judi Caler lives in California and is Article V Issues Director for Eagle Forum of CA. She is passionate about holding our public servants accountable to their oath to support the U.S. Constitution


 On this day in 1789, congress proposed a firewall to contain the new powers of the Constitution. Contrary to popular understanding, The Bill of Rights is not addressed to the people. It is addressed from the people to their new government, telling it in no uncertain terms not to go beyond the named and specific powers that WE THE PEOPLE had just granted it (in the main body of the Constitution).

To further clarify this point, the Bill contains its own preamble: in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its power…  further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. The stringent language of those clauses further nails down their restrictive intent, using terms like: “Congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed,” and “shall not be violated.”

By comparison, in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, privileges are GRANTED by the globalist government to the people. Conspicuously absent are any restraints on UN power, including the right to protest the UN, the right to a jury, and the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, Article 29, section 3 explicitly states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” And this has been shown to be absolutely true over time, the long-term aim being the destruction of national sovereignty for the purposes of their tyrannical New World Order.   I am very happy, even pleasantly shocked, to report that last week, our President, Donald J. Trump, gave a speech at the United Nations where he asserted, over and over, the American Constitution as our rule of law, as well as the concept of national sovereignty in general.

So reader, on this day ask yourself, where do my rights really come from? From a noble, yellowed parchment document? From the founders that wrote it? Or from God? And what have you done to keep those rights? To keep government within its named limits, to preserve your rights and those of your family, going forward in the great storm in time? These are some of the principles we teach to the next generation of patriots at Camp Constitution. Honoring the past… Teaching the Present… Preparing the future…    Won’t you join us?






Eleven score and ten years ago, our fathers met for the second time, at the same great hall in Philadelphia––that same, hallowed hall where thirteen years earlier they had christened America with her great, guiding vision––a Declaration of who we were as a people, as well as an ideal of who we could be as an independent nation––that is, if we could survive.

To achieve this would require a great, united effort of states and people across the land, the physical and spiritual Union of America. The great patriot, Christopher Gadsden, of South Carolina (famed for the golden “Don’t tread on me,” flag) declared, courageously: “There ought to be no New England men, no New Yorker, &c., known on the Continent, but all of us Americans.” And we Americans did come together as one nation to finally attain our sovereignty, but could we keep that spirit alive? By 1787, our future was in doubt.

And so the founders gathered once again, not only as trustees of our hard-won independence, but also as representatives of thirteen very contentious states––states that like thirteen divided nations were (both internally and with each other) on the verge of civil war.

Their immediate purpose was to revise The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union––at a time when that Union was falling apart. Not surprisingly, the new Constitution, in its opening words, defined a much stronger union––a union not only of competing states, but of, by and for the American people, the preamble beginning, in big, bold capital letters for all to see, with “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States.” It was crystal clear from that point on who would be in charge of America and her destiny, and it would no longer be a loose confederation of states.

Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry were alarmed: “Who authorized them to speak in the language of ‘We the people,’ instead of ‘We, the states?’ States are the characteristic and soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the states.”

George Mason concurred, and added, “Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a confederation.”

In reply, the Federalists did not disagree. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina, summed it up correctly, “This admirable manifesto sufficiently refutes the doctrine of the individual sovereignty and independence of the several states. The several states are not even mentioned by name or in any part, as if it was intended to impress the maxim on America that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it, we never could be free or independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this union by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distress.”

Washington, as commanding general, and in all his later travels as president, worked very deliberately to cultivate a feeling of Union among the troops and the people, as the model of what it means to be an American. In his farewell address, he made this a duty for all who would call themselves Americans: “The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness…”

President Trump, in his weekly address, commemorating 230 years of the Constitution, said, “They gave us an incredible gift, the vision of a sovereign and self-governing people to control their own affairs… The framers of our Constitution triumphantly declared to whom the government of the United States belonged. It was, “WE THE PEOPLE.”



Indeed, everything the new constitution set out to do (establish justice, secure the blessings of liberty, provide for the common defense, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare)––all were done, according to The Preamble, “In order to form a more perfect union.” A union of, by, and for WE THE PEOPLE: to ourselves, and our posterity.

So what does this mean to the American of today? It means that each of us has a personal responsibility to see that our republic will not only survive, but continue to thrive as a great beacon, a shining “City on a Hill,” envisioned by John Winthrop in 1630 (his speech an early harbinger of American liberty, as was The Mayflower Compact).

It also means that WE THE PEOPLE are endowed with tremendous power, power vested in each of us not only by this great document, but ultimately by the divine grace and providence of our Creator God, yea the Power, Truth, and Love of Jesus Christ, whom we recognize as the true author and protector of our rights, to guide us in faithfully executing this awesome responsibility: the responsibility to see that our grand experiment is carried forward into the future against all odds, machinations and adversity––carried forward as one nation under God indivisible.

In order to do this we must be able to identify and distinguish threats to both our liberty and Union, and how they act and react in concert. It’s amazing how some of the very best conservatives and libertarians can only see threats to our liberties, while never considering the many threats to our  Union: threats to our wholeness and oneness as Americans.

It is imperative that we be able to think from this angle. In order to fully comprehend and combat what is currently being thrown against us, we need that added stereoscopic perspective of the founders (to comprehend liberty and union together). It’s kind of like having night-vision goggles against a surprise attack in the dark. Yes, it is still possible to fight without it on the same level as the enemy, but why not be able not rise above and gain the initiative by being able to see clearly what, where, and how the attack is being staged?

The Union is our territory and people and our lawful, Constitutional government undivided and as one. So open borders, illegal immigration (counted in the tens of millions of people who will never learn our language, history, traditions, or constitution)––this onslaught, in concert with the globalist plan for a “North American Union,” (the very name of which seeks to subvert and replace our “More Perfect Union”) are threats to America as a people and a nation, and a strain on our limited resources.

It is also an assault on our common language, and all efforts to make us a multilingual Tower of Babel are aimed at destroying our Union (you can’t be united if you can’t speak to each other, which is why Quebec has always been at odds with Canada). A great cartoon depicts John Wayne on a cell phone demanding, “Why do I gotta press one for English?”

Sanctuary cities, UN global compact cities, any and all treachery of cities and states to secede from the Union, to have the country amputated and cut up like a side of beef, or to follow global color-of-law, including illegal environmental initiatives and bylaws created by UN Agenda 21 and ICLEA, are attacks on our liberty, property and territory, our state and constitutional law, and ultimately our union (as they divide us against each other, especially our brainwashed compatriots). On that note, for all who refer to our uninformed countrymen as “those people,” or “the sheeple,” have you ever tried to be the good shepherd and lead them? For this is the spirit of the Union.

Soros-funded, paid mercenaries like Antifa and Black Lives Matter have nothing to do with stopping fascism (like their own) or helping blacks achieve the American dream; but they have everything to do with Balkanization: of attacking and dividing our sacred Union at the level of our very identity: that we must (according to Washington) always think of ourselves first and foremost as Americans.

Our American spirit has always been guided, united and grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition: “One nation, under God, indivisible” ––God, above all, is the cornerstone of our Union, so all efforts in attacking public demonstrations of our faith go against the second clause of the First Amendment, “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The Mayor of Boston, in prohibiting the Christian flag from being flown (even for one day) above Boston City Hall Plaza, is attacking our union as believers, that faith being the very backbone of America (while at the same time, authorizing a great plague of flags which are an affront to American freedom and Christian morality).

Likewise, Obama’s policy of admitting hundreds of thousands whose faith is violently hostile to our own was a vicious attack on the very soul of our Union, one which continues to haunt us this day. As President Trump has declared, “Our nation endures because we have citizens who love America.” So if you truly hate our country, then what are you doing here?

In summary, a patriot can easily identify an attack on our Union by its “divide-and-conquer” nature. These attacks, if examined in depth, are seldom indigenous; in fact, they almost always originate from the same outside source: European banking acting through intelligence tentacles, secret societies and unelected councils placed in government, academia, global “free trade” corporations and the mainstream media who have all, from the beginning, sought divide and conquer us by keeping us at war with each other.

And so on this day, my brother and sister compatriot, have you done your part to make our Union more perfect? To teach and promote what it means to be a good American, to love each other in a Christian way, and to enforce our great constitution?

As President Trump declared in closing, “Let us pledge allegiance to our flag, devote our hearts to our country, and demonstrate our love for one another as Americans, and as the children of God.”

In that spirit, let us band together once again, all across the grand, majestic reaches of The Union, from sea to shining sea. Striding forward together in the cascade of years––against the crashing tide of the times.

These are some of the principles, the history and tools that we teach to posterity, to the next generation of American patriots every summer at Camp Constitution. “Honoring the past; teaching the present; preparing the future.”

Will you join us?







The Weekly Sam: Humanism’s Effect on Family Values

Sam Blumenfeld rightly condended that Humanism’s infleuence permeates our nation and our culture. This explains how a big city mayor can call himself a proud Catholic, but hold a worldview that is in sharp opposite to the teaching of the Catholic Church.   Sam spoke and  wrote about it frequently and contended that it was a man centered religion, and that folks like John Dewey believed that the government school classroom was the pulpit for the Humanist religion.    Here is a link to a speech he gave on the subject from the 1980’s:’s%20Effect%20On%20Family%20Values.pdf