On my segment with Bill LuMaye I explain why there is no logical reason to now hold an Article V Constitutional convention if the goal is to help restore the Republic.
Gary W. Lyons, NC Legislative Liaison for the Convention of States (COS) spoke at the Wake County Tax Payers Assn mtg. in Raleigh on 4/24/14. My question exposes the key logical fallacy to holding an Article V convention. Since Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are all in violation to their oaths to uphold the Constitution now, why should we expect that they would suddenly obey their oath if the Constitution was amended? Gary was honest enough to admit there is nothing that would ensure any new amendments would be obeyed.
Another logical fallacy involves the type of amendments that might be passed at an Article V convention. The state legislatures produce many of the criminals that go on to DC in Congress and the state legislatures refuse to nullify and interpose against federal laws that are not Constitutional per the 10th amendment. Therefore why should we expect the state legislatures to produce amendments that would improve and not undermine the Republic?
The tall tales told by the Lincoln cult get funnier and funnier as more and more Americans learn the truth about their own history (as opposed to the version fed to them by the Lincoln cult). This time the source of their knee-slapping whoppers is a hilarious attempt to cover up the fact that their hero apparently read and studied a white supremacist screed.
A recent article that appeared in the Huffington Post, FOX news online, the Daily Mail, and elsewhere described how Lincoln’s handwriting had been verified by handwriting experts in an 1854 book entitled Types of Mankind. According to these news articles, the book argued that the different races developed at different times, and were therefore not susceptible to co-existing or amalgamation. “The book was used by nineteenth-century white supremacists!,” screamed the articles.
What on earth was Abraham Lincoln, “Father Abraham,” the eternal friend and savior of the black race, doing with such a book?! The Lincoln cult quickly swung into action creating an alibi. The news articles all reported that “Illinois state historians” all “took great pains to offer reassurance that the former president who ended slavery didn’t subscribe to the theories at hand” in the book. No facts were offered, only painful “reassurances” by these state-funded “historians.” I don’t know about you, but I’m not feeling especially reassured.
Even one or two of the Lincoln cult’s Big Guns were un-cobwebbed to participate in broadcasting the alibi. James Cornelius, the curator of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, “reassured” the media that Lincoln “could foresee the whole country coming apart over the issue that different people could be barred from different things” because of their race. He therefore would never have believed the things in that book, said the curator.
James Cornelius and the Illinois state historians are full of it and they know it. These are people who have spent their entire careers reading and cataloguing Abe Lincoln’s political speeches. They surely must know that Lincoln’s views and, more importantly, his actions as a state legislator, a one-term congressman, a political candidate, and as president, are totally consistent with this and any other white supremacist book of that era. Consider the following public statements of Lincoln himself from his own Collected Works (CW):
“Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of them” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256). This statement alone refutes all that the James Cornelius and the Illinois state historians “reassured” the media.
“What I would most desire,” Abraham Lincoln also declared, “would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521). And, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).
“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold [political] office, nor to intermarry with white people,” said the political idol of the Marc Levins, Harry Jaffas, Rich Lowrys, Rush Limbaughs, and all other Lincoln-worshipping neocons (not to mention the Leftist/Marxist Lincoln worshippers like Eric Foner and 99% of the academic history profession).
“Senator Douglas remarked . . . that . . . this government was made for white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too,” said Abe (CW, Vol. II, p. 281).
As Philip Magness and Sabastian Page showed in their excellent book, Colonization After Emancipation, Lincoln worked diligently all his life, up to his dying days, on the project of deporting all the black people out of America. As a young man he was a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society, which used tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks who resided in Illinois. As president, he allocated millions of dollars to a project that would “colonize” American blacks in Liberia. In 1862 he held a meeting with several dozen free black men in the White House at which he explained to them that, because of the inherent differences between the white and black races, they could never live together, and so he urged them to lead by example and colonize themselves in Liberia. In what sounds like it could have been taken directly from the pages of Types of Mankind, Lincoln informed the black men that “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both,” and “affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate” (Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men,” August 14, 1862, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, Vol. 2, 1859-1866 (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 354.
Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution that prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and also supported the Illinois Black Codes that stripped the small number of free blacks in the state of any semblance of citizenship. Once again, his actions were consistent with his words on the subject of race.
It is impossible to believe that James Cornelius and the Illinois state historians are unaware of all these plain historical facts. Not to mention Lincoln’s statements like these: “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the races]. Such separation . . . must be effected by colonization” (CW, Vol. II, p. 409). Or, “It is morally right, and favorable to our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime” (CW Vol. II, p. 409).
What all of this proves is that, contrary to the Lincoln cult’s “reassurances,” Lincoln’s views and actions on the subject of race were perfectly consistent with the 1854 white supremacist book, Types of Mankind. It was not just a book that he read to prepare for court on behalf of one of his legal clients, as the Lincoln cult ludicrously and without any evidence or argument, asserts.
Like all presidential museums, the Lincoln museum in Springfield, Illinois should be thought of as the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Cover-Up Library and Museum. It may well provide accurate information about Abe’s childhood, his family history, his eating habits, shoe size, hats that he wore, etc., etc., but when it comes to the big, important issues, it is devoted to spreading untruths about American history while sweeping much of real history under the rug.
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; ;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe, How Capitalism Saved America, Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) spoke on the Bill LuMaye Show August 6, 2014 about his efforts to release 28 pages of the report “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
On the Alex Jones Show of 7/29/14 Alex interviewed NSA whistle blower William Binney. In the course of the interview Binney mentioned that his solution to stopping federal tyranny would be to hold an Article V convention. In his brief support for an Article V convention Binney made a number of erroneous statements.
First let’s review what Article V actually states:
“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.”
Binney was under the impression that an Article V convention would be controlled by the states and completely independent from Congress. It would appear that Binney’s errant interpretation of an Article V convention has been shaped by the Convention of States (COS) project. (COS is a project of Citizens for Self Destruction.) Article V is clear that “Congress… shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments” after receiving applications from two thirds (or 34) of the States. Binney also claimed that if a COS was held such a convention could not only propose amendments but also ratify them at the same convention. Article V proscribes that after two thirds of the states submit a petition Congress would call the convention. At the convention amendments may be proposed but any proposed amendments would have to be ratified by three fourths (or 38) of the States or conventions of three fourths of the States. Congress would decide the mode of ratification.
Alex Jones admitted that he had previously opposed a Constitutional convention because it could be hijacked. Article V apologists take issue with calling an Article V convention a Constitutional convention. Their objection is an attempt to underplay the magnitude of such a convention which has never been held in our history. An Article V convention is by definition a Constitutional convention because its express purpose is to propose amendments to the Constitution. Article V does not limit the number or scope of amendments that could be proposed – Article V proponents denial of this fact helps to discredit their position.
Alex Jones is obviously frustrated with the corruption in DC that fosters tyranny. The solution is decidedly not an Article V convention for several reasons. I’ll list a few.
1.) States currently have vast power in the Constitution to nullify and interpose against any and every federal law that lacks Constitutional authority. The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” States can pass laws that invalidate federal laws that are not Constitutional, that is, laws that do not conform to Article I Section 8, the enumerated powers of Congress which are very limited. For example, nothing is now stopping West Virginia or any other state from passing laws that permit coal burning power plants to continue operating or to even construct new coal burning power pants. Congress has no legitimate Constitutional mandate to make laws about the environment and the entire EPA lacks any Constitutional basis. Also consider the clarity of the Second amendment – all federal gun laws lack Constitutional authority yet no state has yet refused to submit to the BATFE and the law to license gun dealers and require a federal form to be completed when purchasing a firearm.
2.) The logical fallacy of trusting Congress to be involved in a process that is supposedly designed to limit the power of the federal government in general and Congress in particular. The vast majority of those in Congress are oath breakers – they openly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution. There is no reason that the current occupants of Congress would immediately take their oaths to uphold the Constitution seriously if the Constitution was amended in a positive fashion. It’s as if Article V proponents think an Article V convention would have some mystical power to make corrupt oath breakers repent. The problem is not with the Constitution, it’s a moral problem with those in Congress and the federal government. Article V advocates resist answering a simple question, If Congress currently refuses to follow the Constitution why should we expect Congress to obey the Constitution if it’s amended?
3.) There is a very similar logical fallacy in trusting the current occupants of the state legislatures with an Article V convention. The vast majority of those in the state legislators are also oath breakers – they do not uphold their oaths to the federal Constitution. If those in the state legislatures did uphold their oaths the Constitution we would see many federal laws nullified with state laws interposing against their enforcement at the state level. For example if the GOP super majority in the NC General Assembly was not corrupt we would see the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) nullified and NC laws passed that would ensure Obamacare was rendered null and void in NC, such as arresting any federal government employee who attempted to enforce Obamacare in NC.
I think Alex Jones is sincere in having reversed his position to now endorse an Article V Con Con. Hopefully Alex will reconsider the implications of a Con Con. I would like to see Alex interview Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers about the implications of an Article V Con Con. Alex has interviewed Stewart numerous times in the past but has yet to discuss Article V with him. Another guest who would provide detailed information critiquing an Article V Con Con is Jeff Lewis of the Patriot Coalition. Jeff has worked tirelessly in defending the Constitution at the federal and state levels. Activist Publius Huldah would also provide an excellent opportunity to hear from a bona fide Constitutional expert who has rejected the arguments for an Article V Con Con.
By Greg Barnes
Monday, August 04, 2014
The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) did not tell the owners why they confiscated their vehicle. The $60,000 Land Rover was one of 40 vehicles seized that day by DHS.