My Personal Blog -

You can find my personal blog covering non-political topics at

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

An "Article V" Convention is a Constitutional Convention (Con Con)

Two reasons:

1. Groups like Eagle Forum and others, which have led the fight against using Article V to amend the the U.S. Constitution, refer to an "Article V" Convention as a Con Con. It's that simple; there are different ways to refer to the type of convention Article V is talking about. Why is there a distinction trying to be made between an "Amendment" Convention and a "Constitutional Convention"? To me, it seems that we want to view the applying to Congress to call a Convention as less serious because it involves only "amendments," yet there is no evidence that it would only involve adopting amendments conservative like, or worse, that our U.S. Constitution would significantly change. (Note: Obama's radio interview about "wealth redistribution" relating to our Constitution, and even though the president wouldn't be involved in the "Article V" Convention according to the Constitution, his views are widely held by the Left in Congress and in our state legislatures.)

2. Using the logic that an "Article V" Convention is not a Constitution Convention would be the same as arguing that the Convention in 1787 that produced our current Constitution was not a Constitutional Convention because it wasn't convened with the intention to be a "constitutional convention."

The original Constitutional Convention itself was a convention called to "improve"--not to completely re-write the Articles of Confederation. In the same vain, an "Article V" convention may be called to merely improve the current Constitution, but there's nothing that stops that body from passing as many amendments as it wants or re-writing the Constitution. There is no difference simply because there is nothing that keeps an application to call an "article V" from convening and resulting in a Constitutional Convention. 

Well-intentioned legislators and activists are ready to get radical with the US Constitution before taking other more effective radical steps like sending the federal government's money back to them. It sounds nice to think a new amendment, whether a balanced budget amendment or the repeal amendment, would solve all of our problems, but we must remember, the law can't make people or leaders love freedom and hate debt.

People in America must desire self-government and stop taking money from the government. WE must encourage the state government to send the federal money back or vote them out, even if they are our friends. This is radical.

There's nothing that speaks louder than money.

Major problems barriers to an "Article V" Convention being effective:

1. The fact that Congress would write up the call and set the rules. The rules would highly influence the outcome (like how the delegates are appointed/elected, who would be the temp. chair, who would be on the convention rules committee etc.

2. Our broken court system and whatever happens, there would be disputes that end up being decided by unelected judges.

3. The Left wants a Con Con too! Here's just one example:

4. The media would have an influence simply because an "Article V" convention is a big deal! What kinds of ideas to you think the political pundits would think should be passed?

5. If the will of the people isn't present to vote out the bad members of Congress, how will the will of the people be there to stop the states from ratifying whatever comes out of the Constitutional Convention. (I can hear it now, "we've got to ratify or there's be a civil war...and we don't want war...or whatever scary thing that might happen.)

6. Would 3/4th states ever veto Congress? Why work hard for something that sets the bar so high!! Passing the Health Care Freedom Act in Missouri gave Republican candidates lots of ammunition to ousts liberals from office. If 10 or 15 more states pass it, the public momentum is the message. Why push the number up to 38 to have "teeth," when state governments can pass legislation barring federal involvement now. (Oh, wait, because that means giving up federal funding. Why did the states take stimulus money??)

7. The notion that we don't need to worry because 38 states would have to ratify whatever comes out of that convention makes the assumption that bad ideas don't get passed into law every day and that our legislators aren't swayed into passing compromised legislation all the time. Fighting bad ideas takes times, money, and resources.

I can hear it now: "Well, it's the best we could do! If we don't ratify, we don't get federal money! Our schools will lose funding. Our jails won't be able to keep bad people off the streets. Our bridges will fall. We'll have to cut our beloved tax credits!!" And while this might be a great opportunity for courageous legislators to say "no"; in our experience, federal money causes even the best to crumble.

Last note: One of Phyllis Schlafly's Con Law professors believes her most significant work was to stop an "Article V" convention (or sometimes called "Con Con") over all the work she poured into defeating ERA. If you know history, this is a significant statement.

I recommend articles at

P.S. If we don't want to be controlled by the federal government, let's give it money back to them. 

P.S.S. I wonder if I should start writing under a pen name. 

Monday, December 27, 2010

Submit Questions for RNC Chairman Candidates to Answer

What kinds of candidates will the new RNC chair work to elect?

I'm going to submit that question here. If you've got your own questions, go here, and submit!!

There are some great questions posted already.

Why does it matter? Well, this is the person who is the "face" of Party most conservatives vote for most of the time. What do you want our "face" to look like?

Below are the full details of the Monday, January 3, 2011 debate:

What:  Debate among candidates for the Chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC).
When:   Monday, January 3, 2011 from 1:00 pm – 2:30 p.m. ET
Where:  National Press Club, Ballroom (529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor)
RSVP Required:  Please send name and organization to
Metro, driving directions, and parking information: Click here
Debate Website:  Anyone may submit and vote on questions to be asked during the debate at
Live Streaming:  The debate is open to C-SPAN and also will be streamed live at
Note:  ATR hosted a similar debate on January 5, 2009, drawing 600 attendees and 70 members of the media, including C-SPAN.  The dedicated website for the event – – allowed activists to propose and vote on debate questions.  The site drew 60,000 votes on 925 different questions.

The C-SPAN coverage of the 2009 debate can be viewed by clicking here.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Starting on Jan. 11: Current Events Discussion & The 5000 Year Leap Book Study

Tuesday Evenings-beginning Jan. 11 thur Mar. 29 7:00 pm until no later than 8:30pm.

Eagle Forum Education Center at 7800 Bonhomme Ave., Clayton, MO

Learn where the Founding Fathers got their ideas for sound government and how a return to these ideas can solve our nation’s problems today. Each week participants will talk about how principles presented in The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen (and other handouts), current events, and generally debate how we can best restore these principles to government today.

A door prize each week will include either a conservative book, CD, or DVD. 

The cost of participation is $6 to cover the cost of your book. If you already have a copy, there is no charge. 

Discussions led by Ruth Carlson, Jackie Coleman, and sometimes special guests. Questions: ruth [@] or call 314-721-1213.

You must RSVP to receive a copy of the book at the first class. (shipping takes time, so try to do it by Jan. 4) RSVP is required to receive special instructions before first meeting. You may also RSVP on Facebook, email or phone.

Jan. 11 Receive books, Introduction, Discuss: Why Read and Discuss Books? 
Jan. 18 Part 1: Structuring a Government with all the Power of the People pp 1-32  
Jan. 25 Principles 1, 2 pp 1-57  
Feb. 1 Principles 3, 4 pp 59-93  
Feb. 8 Principles 5, 6 pp 95-113  
Feb. 15 Principles 7, 8, 9 pp 115-139  
Feb. 22 Principles 10, 11, 12, 13 pp 141-167  
Mar. 1 Principles 14, 15 pp 169-191  
Mar. 8 Principles 16, 17, 18, 19 pp 193-227  
Mar. 15 Principles 20, 21, 22, 23 pp 229-257  
Mar. 22 Principles 24, 25 pp 259-279  
Mar. 29 Principles 26, 27, 28 pp 281-310

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Why do we rally?

Have you ever thought about that? Why rally? And why do we keep doing it?

Why should we attend the Consent of the Governed Rally at the State Capitol on the first day of session (Jan. 5 at 10am)?

Sure, speeches that are longer than about 2 minutes boring and many times, even good speakers, use empty, worn-out sound bites more than than needed.

Yet we we rally because it's a celebration of common beliefs and victories to affirm our common goal: a return to freedom and prosperity.

The sponsors of this rally, the Missouri Leadership Project, is collaboration of independent groups who want to make sure all the incoming and veteran lawmakers know that we* haven't lost interest yet.

Remember, as I always tell myself, solutions don't come from rallies, but the rallies provide the place for connections and for the real leaders to stand out--either in the speeches they give or their organization skills (and what our movement lacks are leaders we can elect to office).

Now of course, sprinkled in-between a few outstanding speakers, there are lots people who could good speakers giving bad speeches simply because can. They get so used to public speaking, and we're so desperate to hear some sanity come from the pulpit, we tolerate the ramblers (and yes, the just bad speakers...)

We keep participating because it's moving the ball forward. Our country didn't get here over night, and it takes lots of solidifying the troops (figuratively speaking) before solid action can be taken.

Even more, rallies are about showing up in big numbers, so even if you have a contrary outlook on rallying, protesting, and anything else that basically boosts egos (like I do), you still should go to rallies, protests, and speeches--especially the the rally at the state capitol in Jeff. City on Jan. 5 where legislators need to see our faces.

Really, this is an excuse to go the Capitol and reminder our lawmakers: the people who elected you are watching.

note to audience: "we" refers to citizens who are concerned that our nation is both financial and morally bankrupt
note to self: re-read tomorrow and fix typos  

Thursday, December 16, 2010

What kinds of candidates should the RNC chair support?

Any kind of talk about who should lead the RNC should include what kinds of candidates the RNC should and should not be supporting.


America's problems stem not from an inability to elect Republicans into office; history shows America can do that. (Note: we just did with Steele in charge of the RNC...)

The real question is: can we get the *right* kind of Republicans in Congress?

Has anyone noticed that Ann Wagner’s agenda doesn’t mention what *kinds* of Republicans the RNC, under her leadership, would help elect and raise money for?

Is Ann’s goal to get the *right* kind of Republicans in?

Now, I suppose it's unfair to pick on Ann Wagner because she is probably no different than the other candidates, including Steele. However, Saul Anuzis from MI, who is also running, is endorsed by Tea Party nation (last point). But like Ann Wagner, his "Why Support Saul" page does not mention the kinds of candidates he would support. At the same time, Ann Wagner has a history of supporting candidates like Rep. Roy Blunt, who led the way for using taxpayer money to bailout the "too big to fail" via TARP  while Saul Anuzis has connections to Reps like Rep. McCotter (MI-R), who was one of the few disenting Republicans who voted not once, but twice against the big bill authorizing lots of stuff including TARP.

Thus, maybe it's not politically savvy to mention that you want to support the outsiders who will do the right thing on your website. Maybe it's up to conservatives to connect the dots to know which candidate is more likely to support truly conservative candidates.

Even more, the entire purpose of the RNC should be in question but those who have spent time fighting to end out-of-control government spending. The best candidate to support is one that can articulate why supporting Republicans who can win is not a legitimate long-term strategy for saving our country.

The goal should be limiting government not electing Republicans (without definition). I call this “sticking fingers in the leaks of the dam” to hold off the inevitable. But maybe this is the best we can do. Yet something inside of me says “give me liberty or give me death”!!!!

Side note:

This post is already too long, but...

At an RNC meeting in Hawaii last January, conservative members united to try to pass a resolution prohibiting RNC funding for candidates who don't support eight of ten key conservative issues, a proposal that Steele opposed. A compromise resolution was passed that was similar, but didn't really affect the types of candidates that the RNC supported, as there are plenty of examples of the RNC supporting incumbents who voted for deficit spending and earmarks. You would think this would go against the Republican National Platform, but the platform really isn't that great; no where can one link to principles the TEA Parties have spent over 1.5 years articulating. But then, that's why people people are TEA Partying.

What should be obvious is that while the RNC chair will say he or she is neutral and should support all Republican candidates; this isn't true. The RNC supports incumbents first, and follows what it is typical of politics: financial support is linked to how likely it is that you will win and able to raise money for the RNC in the future. The RNC is about it's own survival--not yours. 

Friday, December 10, 2010

Trust Is the Lifeblood of Any Organization or Relationship

I'm stealing this idea from many sources, but I'll reference John Maxwell because I'm reading a book by him right now.

In the Law of Solid Ground in his book 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Maxwell says that trust is the foundation of leadership, and I'd expand on that to say, it's the foundation of all of our relationships.

The way this plays out in the business world is finding ways to build trust. And here's an example of Walgreens doing that after someone hacked into their email database:

As a company, we absolutely believe that all customer relationships must be built on trust. That is why we believe it is important to inform you of this incident. Online security experts have reported an increase in attacks on email systems, and therefore we have voluntarily contacted the appropriate authorities and are working with them regarding this incident.

The email also included tips on not sharing personal information through email links and that no other information beyond the email addresses were stolen.

“To be trusted is a greater compliment than to be loved.”
~George MacDonald

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Learn How to be an Effective Citizen Lobbyist

All I can say is: go. If you care about how laws affect your family and neighborhood, then you need to understand how the process works and how you can effect it.

Register here.

Capitol Legislative Academy

Tuesday, January 4, 2011
10:00 a.m. - 3:0 p.m.
Jefferson City, Missouri Capitol
House Hearing Room 7

Find your way through the Legislative maze and PROMOTE YOUR ISSUE.
Learn the most effective way to approach your legislature.
Gain knowledge from a mock hearing.
Become skilled on how to present your subject matter.
NETWORK with other like-minded Missourians.
Lunch and materials included.

RSVP by December 20th to 314-983-0680, or online
Money must be received in advance to be assured of lunch.
$12 per person; children under 12 - $5