“I’m Just a Mom!” Daphne Lee Gives Powerful Speech Against NDAA in Clark County, Nevada

For more information about how US citizens are subject to indefinite detention and execution without due process under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act):




Constitutional Con Job

Jeff Lewis



State legislators from across the country are being duped into attempting to trigger an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments.” Most recently, legislators were invited to George Washington’s home at Mt. Vernon to discuss, not why amending the Constitution would solve the problems we face, but rather, how they can help amend the United States Constitution.

It would be encouraging that legislators from 32 states were interested in attending a conference to discuss problems related to the governance of our constitutional republic, had they actually discussed strategies about how they can better “support” the Constitution they swore an oath to, but they did not.

Instead of working to rein in a rogue federal government using the constitutional authorities they already possess, these legislators think amending the Constitution they refuse to support will make the public servants in D.C. support it. How nice it would be if they were as interested in the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they are in Article V.

Lawyers such as Rob Natelson, Michael Farris, Mark Levin, and Nick Dranias are spinning a yarn that we can restore the Constitution by changing it. They claim the main argument against the ruse they are knitting together is that a convention might become a “runaway.” No. That is not the main argument. The main argument is that amending the Constitution won’t make public servants uphold it. Their “solution” doesn’t even solve the problem they identify, let alone the root problem of a failure of the People to elect men and women of character who will actually keep their oath.

They lie when they claim Article V requires a reason or subject matter for such a convention. It does not. It merely requires two thirds of the states to apply for, and Congress to call, a “Convention for proposing Amendments.”

If you can get people to ask the wrong questions, the answers won’t matter. That is what the proponents of an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” are hoping you’ll do. Like politicians on the campaign trail, these folks will tell you whatever they think you need to hear to help them trigger an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments,” and we know how much we can rely on campaign promises. ZERO.

10 Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention should be called ’10 excuses for not upholding the Constitution as written…”

Click here to read the rest of the article

James Madison described Tyranny

Federalist #47

… No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct…

Turley: Obama’s “Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid”


REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

This Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration. There is two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress. One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction. (House hearing, December 3, 2013)