Interview: John Birch Society’s Art Thompson Speaks on the Dangers of Con Con

 By: Joshua Cook Apr 5, 2015


There is a growing movement among limited-government activists who believe that a Constitutional Convention could solve a lot of America’s balanced budget problems.

Many writers for BenSwann.com have been critical of a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) in the past (see here and here), but the movement has evolved from theory into a growing movement. Many bills for a Con Con are being debated in state houses throughout America.

BenSwann.com’s Joshua Cook spoke to  Art Thompson, CEO of John Birch Society, about the problems with the Con Con, pro-Constitutional Convention, movement.

Cook said that he had friends on both sides of the debate who all want the government to be fiscally responsible, so what’s wrong with those calling for a balanced budget amendment?

“The purpose of it is to rein in the government. So, I would ask the question, does the Constitution now rein in the government? And the answer, of course, is no. The problem is that it wouldn’t matter if you have some change in the Constitution for the better. Would they pay any attention to that anymore than they do to the Constitution today?” asked Thompson.

“The problem is not the Constitution and having to make additions to the Constitution. The problem is adhering to the Constitution we have,” he explained.

Thompson explained that he is all for a balanced budget, but he said standing between the government and a balanced budget are roadblocks.

“We say this unless you repeal two amendments to the Constitution, it will be next to impossible to have a balanced budget,” he said.

“Because what we used to have in this country  was a system of checks and balances between the House and the Senate and the Executive, but once we got the 16th Amendment, the income tax, and once we got the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, that threw the whole system to a tailspin. And we’ve never recovered from it,” he added.

“Most people do not understand the implications of those two amendments and how they have destroyed checks and balances between the states and the federal government,” he said. “All you need to do is repeal them, and you’d have a balanced budget if we went back to the old system.”

Thompson said that America’s problems need fixing, but a Constitutional Convention movement is not the answer.

One of his issues with organizations, like Call A Convention, is the bipartisan nature of the group and the questionable sources of its funding.

“There has been 10s of millions of dollars contributed to this campaign, and we don’t know where it’s coming from. In fact, when you take a look at the people involved and the organizations involved, there is more of a case that this is a leftist movement than a conservative movement,” he said.

Call A Convention’s backers, according to their website include conservative Mark Levin and Wolf PAC, an organization that has roots in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Thompson said that there is no room for bipartisanship, because liberals’ and conservatives’ philosophies are different.

“Bipartisanship has gotten us into the problem. Bipartisanship is another word for compromise in my book. You either stand for the Constitution or you don’t,” he explained. “The problem has been is that the conservatives always compromise with the left. And that compromise with the left has gotten us where we are today.”

These bipartisan groups contain people with radically different viewpoints.

“Some of these people want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, or if they can’t get rid of it, to add a couple extra words that make it impossible for a citizen in the United States to have the right to keep and bear arms unless they belong to a state militia,” he added.
Are those the type of people we want gathering to amend, or rewrite, our Constitution?

“Conservatives professing that all they want is a balanced budget, but they’re in bed with some leftists who have a completely different agenda. That doesn’t compute logically in my brain,” he said.

Another issue is that the balanced budget amendment would be written during the convention.

“Now I’ve seen a number of balance budget proposals, not one of them would balance the budget,” he explained.

One of the problems with the proposal is the Federal Reserve.
“You cannot balance the budget of the United States unless you take into account the Federal Reserve,” he said. The Federal Reserve allows the government to spend money it doesn’t actually have.

“And yet the Federal Reserve can keep the presses rolling and they might do it in a way of currency exchanges, which is how they’re bailing out Europe right now. They are sending palettes of $100 bills to Europe, and they’re sending us back palettes of Euros. Now we don’t spend the Euros. They’re put in a basement someplace. But Europe spends the dollars,” he explained.

“That to me, is not a balance. It’s a whole unethical means of bailing out Europe,” he said.

And we know the government has emergencies like this all of the time.

Another problem with the balanced budget proposals they don’t account for how much money the federal government gives the states, many of which don’t have their owned balanced budgets.
Thompson also suggests repealing departments and services that aren’t Constitutionally backed. Those include things like Obamacare and departments of education and energy.
“All of those things are off budget, and yet those things are bankrupting this whole country,” he said.
To pay for those unconstitutional agencies, taxes could be raised.
“If we don’t repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, a balanced budget will tax our economy to its knees.”
To learn more about the John Birch Society, visit their website.

Why Not One Governor Is Qualified to Be US President

 "If only we had a governor with the guts of a good sheriff."

Thursday, 19 February 2015

Written by  Selwyn Duke

Our Constitution has become a suicide pact.

That’s the view of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in an 1819 letter to jurist Spencer Roane, when he said “If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se” (suicide pact). The opinion Jefferson referred to is the legitimacy of judicial review, the idea, as he put it, that “gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres.” He warned that accepting such a doctrine makes “the Judiciary a despotic branch” that acts as “an oligarchy.”

That “opinion” has been accepted. The despotism has befallen us. The oligarchy reigns.

In recent times federal judges have ruled that Arizona must provide driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, states such as Utah and Alabama must allow faux marriage, and a Wisconsin voter-identification law is unconstitutional. 

And these are just a few examples of judicial usurpations that continue unabated and go unanswered. But the answer, which needs to be given first and foremost by governors, is simple:

“No.

No — I will not abide by the court’s unjust ruling. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and, insofar as the central government or judiciary violates it, it renders itself illegitimate. As the governor of my state and head of its executive branch, I am charged with the enforcement of its laws. And we will recognize no more unconstitutional juridical or federal dictates.”

(Note: while my main focus here is our much abused judicial review, I’m advocating the same course with respect to all unconstitutional dictates.)

If this seems radical, note that even Abraham Lincoln agreed, saying in his first inaugural address, “If the policy of the government, upon the vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court … the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

The process I’m advocating here is known as nullification. 

And should anyone still think it radical or unprecedented, know that we’d only be taking a leaf out of the Left’s book. Explanation?

What do you think “sanctuary cities” are?

They’re places where liberals have decided they’re simply going to resist federal immigration law.

What do you think is happening when states (e.g., Colorado) and leftist municipalities ignore federal drug laws? Nullification is happening.

Yet no matter how egregious, un-American, unconstitutional, and despotic the federal or judicial usurpations, the conservative response is typified by what Utah governor Gary Herbert said — feeling oh-so principled, I’m sure — after the federal faux-marriage ruling: “Ultimately we are a nation of laws and we here in Utah will uphold the law.” Yes, we’re supposed to be a nation subject to the rule of law.

Not the rule of lawyers.

And our governors are allowing subjection to the latter, feeling noble playing by rules the Left laughs at.

It’s not surprising that revolutionary spirit has been cornered by liberals. The only consistent definition of “liberal” is “desire to change the status quo” — it is revolutionary by definition. In contrast, the only consistent definition of “conservative” involves something antithetical to revolution: the desire to maintain the status quo. Of course, it completely eludes conservatives that today’s status quo was created by yesterday’s liberals. And one modern status quo is to lose culture-war and political battles to the Left. And, boy, do conservatives ever maintain that one. They’re like a guy who goes into a fight, gets poked in the eyes and kicked in the kneecaps, loses, and then the next time still thinks he’s got to follow Queensbury rules.

We hear a lot of talk about “states’ rights.” Ex-Texas governor Rick Perry was a good example of a big talker. 

But where’s the beef? Merely flapping lips doesn’t sink big-government ships. There have been nullification efforts by state legislatures, mainly regarding federal gun-control law, and many sheriffs across the country have vowed not to enforce such law. And Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore is currently defying a federal faux-marriage ruling. This is laudable, but why are the chief executives MIA? If only we had a governor with the guts of a good sheriff.

We’re meant to be a nation of states, not a nation state. But rights mean nothing if you’re not eternally vigilant in their defense, if you don’t actively stand against those who would trample them. In 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder threatened Kansas with legal action over a new anti-federal-gun-control state law. If the courts ruled against the state, what would Governor Sam Brownback do? Make some “principled” comments about the rule of law(lessness) and then assume the prone position?

This is why I say not one governor is truly qualified to be president: If a chief executive will not oppose federal tyranny while the head of a state government, why should we think he’d oppose federal tyranny once head of the federal government?

History teaches that entities don’t willingly relinquish power; it didn’t happen in 1776 and it won’t happen now. 

People are generally quite zealous about increasing their power, though. This returns us to the courts’ usurpations. Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision — by the Supreme Court.

That’s right: the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the Supreme Court’s despotic power.

Of course, unilateral declarations of power are not at all unusual historically. It’s what happened whenever an agent of tyranny — whether it was a conquering king, communist force, or crime syndicate — took over. But these despotisms were enforced, as Mao put it, “through the barrel of a gun.” It wasn’t usually the case that the subjects rolled over like trained dogs lapping up lawyer-craft. Oh, it’s not that I don’t see the crafty lawyers’ position. I might like to crown myself Emperor of America, but, should I insist I possess this unilaterally-declared status with enough conviction, I may get a stay in a mental institution. The courts get to dictate to everyone else and spread insanity all the way around.

Perhaps it needn’t be stated, but the power of judicial review isn’t in the Constitution. So is it any wonder that a federal court, concerned about Barack Obama’s comments relating to the judiciary, asked his administration in 2012 to submit a formal letter indicating whether or not it recognized the power? 

Judicial review, being an invention, is dependent upon the acquiescence of the other two branches of government.

Oh, and what is Obama’s actual position? He believes in the court’s power — when it serves his agenda. 

Otherwise, he’s willing to ignore court rulings himself, as he did when suing Texas over voter ID in 2013. (In fact, never mind the courts. Obama ignores duly enacted federal law he doesn’t like.)

The lesson?

We can even learn from Obama.

The idea of judicial review is thoroughly un-American. As Jefferson also pointed out, judges are not morally superior to anyone else, having “with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” Despite this, he wrote in his letter to Roane, while we’re meant to have “three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another,” judicial review has given “to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others”; moreover, he continued, this power was given to the very branch that “is unelected by, and independent of the nation.” Jefferson then warned that this has made the Constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” And our country is being twisted along with it as patriots twist in the wind.

Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by, and for the people if nine unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.  

Nonetheless, most conservatives are waiting for the next election or the next court ruling or the next president to right the ship, but they and their republic will die waiting when remedial action can be taken now. Nullification — when properly exercised, it’s a fancy way of saying “standing up for the law of the land.” Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement — and become a hero and martyr to millions.

It’s waiting there for you, governors, glory and God’s work. We just need a leader, someone with greater passions for principle than “for party, for power.” It’s waiting.

Rise, American hero, rise.

via thenewamerican

State Legislative Battles Heat Up

—  JBS Weekly Member Update  — February 2, 2015

State Legislative Battles Heat Up In the battle of controlling federal tyranny, state legislatures play a key role. The states have the responsibility of protecting its citizens from the overreaches of an unconstitutional federal government. And they have a number of tools at their disposal. But getting the state legislature to stand up for the citizens usually requires some level of education on your part. First of all, legislators need to understand the federal government is limited in its role as spelled out in the Constitution. For instance, the responsibilities of the Congress, as originally delegated to it by the states in 1787, are housed in Article I, Section 8. According to the 10th Amendment, responsibilities outside of these limits are reserved to the states or the people. With that simple understanding, state legislators should work toward countering Congress each time it ventures outside of its constitutional limitations. Unfortunately, states do not have a great history of standing up to the federal government. If they did, states would not be as financially dependent upon the federal government as 2012 Census data demonstrates: "State Budget Solutions found that all state governments combined received 31.6 percent of their general revenue from the federal government in 2012." Realize that the role you play locally and in your state is much more important than any federal election will ever be. Right now, JBS members and supporters are working in each state to stop legislation antithetical to freedom. They are also educating legislators on their role and working to recruit others. If you're not involved, do so today! At the very least, start by signing up for our legislative alerts, so you can send your elected state and federal officials emails about what they should be supporting. We have been closely monitoring states that are introducing resolutions to ask Congress to call a constitutional convention. Email alerts have been sent out to those in affected areas. Be sure to let your legislators know of your support for keeping the Constitution as written, instead of opening it up for rewrite. As history has proven, constitutional conventions cannot be controlled. Are you ready to join? via JBS

The Real Newt Gingrich - Republican Congress Failures to this day, More *vid*

Gingrich has the greatest toxicity of  Georgia's  venomous serpents - the southern copperhead. It will strike the uninformed, sound-byte/catch phrase gawker, and unwary. "It" is the most toxic of any Republican to American liberty. "It" slithers amongst us and is fatal to cuddle and coax. Don't let your mind be newterized to danger. Run away from "It" when encountered.

See how much of your state's land has been seized by the federal government

Is Political Party Disloyalty a Bad Thing?

September 22, 2014

Is Party Disloyalty a Bad Thing?

When browsing through multiple sites looking for posts for our Facebook page, we came across an article on Townhall.com titled, "Report: GOP Leadership Considering Rules to Punish Party Disloyalty."

 

Perhaps much like yourself, we started thinking that maybe this would be a good thing. After all, the Republican party should be standing on such principles as constitutionally limited government, individual responsibility, and protection of God-given rights. Unfortunately, the leadership of the GOP only masquerades as the party of these principles. Perhaps some punishment is in order for those that continue to advocate and vote for a stronger centralized government (mainly through the neo-conservatives and RINOs) in exchange for individual liberties. But that's not the GOP focus.

 

The GOP is proposing to punish members of its party who do not vote for their pick of Speaker of the House. Punishment includes a stripping of committee assignments. And cited as the reason is to make it appear as though the party is united. Well now, for a party that is supposed to stand for individual rights, where does the hypocrisy end? How many of those committees are tied to unconstitutional federal departments?

 

Bottom line is that when any party strays away from the confines of constitutional government, an educated electorate should and must stand up to correct its direction.

 

The John Birch Society does not endorse political candidates or parties, but on their own, members are free to be as involved in partisan politics as they want.

 

Join today to raise an educated electorate that will bring back constitutional limitations.

 

The GOP has strayed far from its limited government and individual liberty principles.

via JBS

Obama Admin. Still Blocking FOIA Release of CIA Cuba Bay of Pigs Documents

One need not have superior intelligence to realize that the nearly lifetime stall by the US political syndicate is covering up political treachery, crimes, betrayal and embarrassment.

Is Congress Becoming Obsolete?

Organizing Patriot Effectiveness on the Ground, Maybe the JBS Can Help

September 15, 2014

JBS Weekly Member Update  —

September 15, 2014

A quick discussion ensued in the regular Monday morning weekly meeting at the JBS home office in Appleton. As each staff member in attendance reported on various issues in the news, one member brought up the fact that in preparing for the next installment of "The Freedom Index", the staff was having a hard time in finding decent votes to critique Congress members.

Normally, staff would comb through hundreds of votes to be able to identify at least 10 constitutionally significant votes for each half year. However, very few of these votes have been passed since our July 2014 Freedom Index. The staff member suggested that Congress is appearing to do less and less, while the President has been doing more and more.

He pointed to the page length of the bills, the passing of continuous resolutions instead of a budget, and how the President has usurped much more responsibility from Congress.

According to the Constitution, Congress has an enormous responsibility, including all legislative powers (Article I, Section 1) and another 18 paragraphs of powers as spelled out in Article I, Section 8. Yet, Congress continues to allow many of its powers to be usurped by the executive and judicial branches of government, interrupting the fragile balance the founders sought.

Isn't this precisely why the federal government has grown so far outside of its constitutional limitations? Because the checks and balances that each branch is to perform is not being done. And if it's not being done, then why? Would we be out of line if we asked if this was mere happenstance or if this was being deliberately done? Being done to water down the effectiveness of the American Republic? Being done to create a larger crisis that gives the American people a reason to look to the international community for solutions?

Look to Washington today and ask yourself just who is interested in continuing this grand American experiment. Are we so far away from our constitutional moorings that we have passed the point of no return?

The John Birch Society doesn't think so, but yet where are the Constitutionalists, the patriots, and the true conservatives? As one of our Coordinators recently remarked on Facebook: When I go into a Congressional district to organize active member Chapters, I find there are easily more than enough concerned Americans to make a difference in restoring the Republic.

Yet, without this leadership, those activists usually do not reach their potential and end up burning out and becoming disengaged.

The John Birch Society provides this leadership and an active plan for restoring government to its rightful role so Americans can flourish or fail according to their own efforts. With your help, we can do this. Join today!

The U.S. House of Representatives (house.gov).

NATIONAL EVENTS:

September 30: Change It or Obey It? with Scott Bradley, PhD, Spokane Valley, WA. October 2: Change It or Obey It with Scott Bradley, PhD, Great Falls, MT. October 18: JBS Executive Dinner Presentations, Midland, TX.

LOCAL EVENTS:

September 16, 23, 30, October 7: The Constitution is the Solution Workshop, Grand Bay, AL. September 20: Morality and Freedom with Rev. Steven Craft, Northampton, PA. September 23: Who Owns Your Children? with FPE Executive Director Alan Scholl, West Jordan, UT. September 26: Fighting Common Core: Round Two with Dr. Duke Pesta, Millburn, NJ. September 27: No More Common Core Symposium with Dr. Duke Pesta, Vineland, NJ. September 28: Fighting Common Core: Round Two with Dr. Duke Pesta, Hightstown, NJ. October 4: Common Core: Dangers and Threats, Milwaukee, WI. October 7: Immigration Invasion Video Showing, Flemington, NJ. Full Schedule

AFFILIATES:

The New American Liberty News Network American Opinion Foundation FreedomProject Education Campus Liberty Alliance ShopJBS.org

Unanswered Questions About Middle East Terrorism - video

 
The John Birch Society

JBS CEO Art Thompson's weekly news video update for September 15 - 21, 2014.

In this week's analysis behind the news video, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses a series of questions about ISIS and other Middle East terrorists: Who funds them? Who arms them? who buys their oil? Who trains them? Why can't we hack into the terrorists' accounts? What's the role of Russia, China, and the United States? Are Russia, China, and the U.S. working together? Why is al-Qaeda still growing? and Why should we build a communist-influenced Kurdish nation? 

NATO Being Positioned As Police Force for New World Order

Could our worldwide crisis actually not be an Islamic war on Christianity, but an unbridled  Islamic resistance to the rapidly shaping NWO of which the US is the leading sponsor, financially, materially, and manpower (casualties) - - - Hmmm....what are you thinking? 

Not to be overlooked is we have established ourselves with a strong presence on the African continent under AFRICOM. (America’s Expanding Secret War in Africa)
Again, all our money and debt which is in the trillions now.

   
JBS CEO Art Thompson's weekly news video update for September 8 - 14, 2014.

In this week's analysis behind the news video, JBS CEO Art

Thompson discusses how a photo in the Wall Street Journal for September 5 reveals a Russian cargo plane being loaded in Germany with supplies bound for Communist Iraqi Kurds; and how news stories from around the world the past couple years reveal the positioning of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a United Nations subsidiary organization, to become the police force for the New World Order.