A Convention of States?

The Convention of States Project is pleased to announce that states are now beginning to pre-file applications to call a Convention of States for the purpose of limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.

Virginia was the first state to call the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Once again, the historic state is standing up to defend the rights of the American people. With several states soon to follow, Virginia recently claimed the title of first to pre-file an application to call a Convention of States.

Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-31) is leading the effort in Virginia, along with Del. Jim LeMunyon (R-67) who has been deeply involved in the process. After meeting with COS Leader, Michael Farris, Del. Lingamfelter agreed to push the application through as the prime sponsor during Virginia’s 2014 legislative session.

“Legislators are concerned with what’s going on. They are excited to see what’s happening, and want to take part,” said Mark Wohlschlegel, COS Executive Director.

Four additional states are expected to follow Virginia’s lead and pre-file applications in anticipation of the upcoming 2014 legislative season.

This is something that may work, if a good majority of States will get involved.  I’m going to GUESS that the Progressive Liberals will be against this, claiming racism of course.


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    These are things that should be taking place, considering this administration and their antics. Even I can possibly sink my teeth into this movement.

  2. gmanfortruth says:


    So now the Gubmint thinks it knows what the insurance companies need next year. The only people this administration is fooling are the gullible followers that think they do no wrong. The sheeple are oblivious, the rest of us know this is because of “The Rigged Election”. This is a clear sign of what is yet to come from Obamacare. The employer policies get destroyed. 🙄

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    My weekend weather








  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Another mental case that has been elected to Congress. Does this guy even SEE reality?
    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) warns sports stadiums are at risk from the “sea level rise effects of climate change,” and that climate change specifically threatens hockey and skiing. “We see significant sports facilities, the palaces of – of sport that are at risk from the storm, climate, sea-level rise effects of climate change,” Sen. Whitehouse said today following a closed-door climate discussion with executives from the NFL, NHL and NBA. He said the threat to hockey is that people will no longer be able to play outdoors on frozen ponds: “Without cold enough weather for frozen ponds, the kind of hockey that you play out of doors with your friends gets a little bit harder to achieve.” Whitehouse also suggested climate change will prevent his family from continuing to go skiing in Rhode Island: “I took my kids skiing at Yawgoo Valley ski slopes in Rhode Island. The New York Times recently reported that we can expect all the ski slopes in Connecticut and Massachusetts to be gone. “Obviously, given Rhode Island’s location, if that’s true of Connecticut and Massachusetts, that will also be unfortunately true of Rhode Island.” – See more at: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/senator-sports-stadiums-risk-fromsea-level-rise-effects-climate-change#sthash.u0TkeOEY.dpuf

  5. gmanfortruth says:


    Question of the day. If one of these kids gets shot (which has already happened) after they punch someone and dies, is it self defense. This would be much different than the Zimmerman shooting. I would say it is self defense, especially for a female or the elderly.

    Circumstance has you engaged with a teen who just punched you, he has 5 friends with him, you draw and shoot, killing the attacker.

    Same circumstances, you don’t draw but fight back. Get jumped by six, then draw and shoot, killing 3 and wounding 2 others.

    Same circumstances, you just walk away. If they don’t come after you no one gets shot, you just take the punch and move on. If they come after you, you run.

    Whats the best thing to do?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      This is a recipe for wide spread RACE RIOTS.

      People begin to be afraid, then the next group that approaches or punches and runs gets shot up.

      Then another and another.

      Then the Black Folk go crazy over the shootings of their kids by angry white people.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I think your right, I also think that some within the ruling class want this to happen, speculation of course.

      • It is a very real possibility but in some ways I think the existence of children who have no sense of guilt for purposely hurting people -shows we are already in a race war. ONe that people want to not acknowledge.

        Can’t fix a problem if you ignore or deny that it exists. I’ve come to the conclusion that as a society we are excepting bad behavior from straight up lying, cheating, stealing, all the way to actually believing people can be excused from actually intentionally hurting people. WE are teaching the wrong things somehow.

        Interesting article attached speaks to what the acceptance of the first few things is costing us and exasberating the problem’s, in my opinion to the point of feeling no guilt for hurting people. Vicious circle of poverty creating violence, which creates more poverty by making it impossible to create wealth in these areas.


        • gmanfortruth says:

          This is very true VH. People put out eggs with a box for payment around here, the honor system at it’s finest. That would never happen in downtown Philly. Do you trust the Federal govt?

          • One thing I stated which I don’t think is completely true-Poverty does create violence but only to a point-it takes a certain mentality of victimhood and I am justified to bring it upto a dangerous level.

            • This is concept I thoroughly reject. If it were true, the Great Depression would have led to anarchy, the likes of which had never been seen before. The reality was, people basically continued going about their lives. Stealing bread or a chicken to eat is one thing. Mindless beating and killing is quite another.

              During the depression the basic facts of our humanity were never in question. Today, economically depressed or not, civility, humanity, morality are not taught in the home or in the school. Nobody goes to church. Do your own thing is the mantra. We have slipped back in common civility and respect for each other to a distant point in the human past. It is “judgmental” to correct someone. Who, after all is to say our way is “better” than theirs or our thinking for that matter.

              • I know people think I bring up social issues a lot-but it is this type of situation that makes these issues important-in my mind more important than the economical. If you have respect for your fellow man, yourself, and for the value of life then I think the economics will follow.

                We have people who are poor and they are living in war zones-lots of reasons why-but the breakup of the family is a big one. But one thing is clear-joining gangs is not the same as a community helping and supporting each other. It’s more of a separation from said community and the members are at war with everyone who isn’t a member.

          • And NO G-I don’t trust my government anymore-I just think I’m unimportant enough and try to follow the laws -that they will probably not ever really mess with me beyond taxes and regulations. Now If I was rich and supported conservative causes with my money-I would be very personally worried.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Like you, I’m not going to be bothered by them. I do worry about others who are not in my position and may face violence where they live, most know where to come and what to bring, been planning for years now 🙂

  6. Dang if this isn’t how our Country works-pushes wind power as a cheap power source-then fine companies for killing birds, which raises the cost of providing cheaper energy. Then gives very few options of how not to kill birds and the ones they give sound extremely expensive to implement. Doesn’t sound to environmentally safe or cheap to me.

    Energy Company Will Pay $1 Million For Killing Birds With Wind Mills
    Nov. 23, 2013 2:02pm Oliver Darcy

    Story by the Associated Press; curated by Oliver Darcy.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A major U.S. power company has pleaded guilty to killing eagles and other birds at two Wyoming wind farms and agreed to pay $1 million as part of the first enforcement of environmental laws protecting birds against wind energy facilities.

    Until the settlement announced Friday with Duke Energy Corp. and its renewable energy arm, not a single wind energy company had been prosecuted for a death of an eagle or other protected bird — even though each death is a violation of federal law, unless a company has a federal permit. Not a single wind energy facility has obtained a permit.

    The Charlotte, N.C.-based company pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at its Top of the World and Campbell Hill wind farms outside Casper, Wyo. All the deaths, which included golden eagles, hawks, blackbirds, wrens and sparrows, occurred from 2009 to 2013.
    Energy Company Will Pay $1 Million For Killing Birds With Wind Mills

    (Image source: Shutterstock)

    “Wind energy is not green if it is killing hundreds of thousands of birds,” said George Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy, which supports properly sited wind farms. “The unfortunate reality is that the flagrant violations of the law seen in this case are widespread.”

    There could be more enforcement. The Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating 18 bird-death cases involving wind-power facilities, and about a half-dozen have been referred to the Justice Department.

    Wind farms are clusters of turbines as tall as 30-story buildings, with spinning rotors as wide as a passenger jet’s wingspan. Though the blades appear to move slowly, they can reach speeds up to 170 mph at the tips, creating tornado-like vortexes. Eagles are especially vulnerable because they don’t look up as they scan the ground for food, failing to notice the blades until it’s too late.

    “No form of energy generation, or human activity for that matter, is completely free of impacts, and wind energy is no exception,” the American Wind Energy Association said in a statement.

    The case against Duke Energy and Duke Energy Renewables Inc. was the first prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act against a wind energy company. The Obama administration has championed pollution-free wind power and used the same law against oil companies and power companies for drowning and electrocuting birds.

    “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths,” Robert G. Dreher, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in a statement.

    Duke has a market capitalization of nearly $50 billion.

    “We deeply regret the impacts of golden eagles at two of our wind facilities,” Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables, said in a statement. “Our goal is to provide the benefits of wind energy in the most environmentally responsible way possible.”

    “We deeply regret the impacts of golden eagles at two of our wind facilities”


    A study in September by federal biologists found that wind turbines had killed at least 67 bald and golden eagles since 2008. Wyoming had the most eagle deaths. That did not include deaths at Altamont Pass, an area in northern California where wind farms kill an estimated 60 eagles a year.

    An investigation in May by The Associated Press revealed dozens of eagle deaths from wind energy facilities, including at Duke’s Top of the World farm, the deadliest for eagles of 15 such facilities that Duke operates nationwide.

    In 2009, Exxon Mobil pleaded guilty and paid $600,000 for killing 85 birds in five states. The BP oil company was fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill. And PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants, paid more than $10.5 million in 2009 for electrocuting 232 eagles along power lines and at its substations.

    The wind farms in Friday’s settlement came on line before the Obama administration drafted voluntary guidelines encouraging wind energy companies to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid locations that would impact wildlife. Companies that choose to cooperate get rewarded because prosecutors take it into consideration before pursuing prosecution.

    Once a wind farm is built, there is little a company can do to stop the deaths. Some companies have tried using radar to detect birds and to shut down the turbines when they get too close. Others have used human spotters to warn when birds are flying too close to the blades. Another tactic has been to remove vegetation to reduce the prey the birds like to eat.

    As part of the agreement, Duke will continue to use field biologists to identify eagles and
    shut down turbines when they get too close. It will install new radar technology, similar to what is used in Afghanistan to track missiles. And it will continue to voluntarily report all eagle and bird deaths to the government.

    The company will also have to apply for an eagle take permit and draft a plan to reduce eagle and bird deaths at its four wind farms in Wyoming.

    Duke’s $1 million will be divided. The fine — $400,000 — will go into a wetlands conservation fund. The state of Wyoming gets $100,000. The remainder will be used to purchase land or easements to protect golden eagle habitat and for projects aimed at minimizing interactions between eagles and wind turbines in Wyoming.


    • gmanfortruth says:

      If you look deep into the Green energy/climate change issue, you will find some interesting facts. We all know Obama hates coal, which is uysed in our cheapest form of electrical generation. Coal is also the #1 product for electricity in China and India. The Left, with all their BS, is making coal very expensive, which has a huge impact in areas we don’t often think about.

      I think either SK or T-Ray states that cheap energy is needed for prosperity to take hold in poor areas. This is quite true. Despite what the general populace believes about Global warming/climate change, it’s # 1 goal is to keep the 3rd world where they are , poor and impoverished. Don’t let their LIES fool you, they (the ruling class) want those in poverty to stay there. Our inner cities are a prime example of Left wing ideology and it’s results. Our friends on the Left have been snookered by the lies about helping those in need, but if they opened their eyes, they could see exactly what Liberal political rule provides, poverty and control.

      • T-Ray and I both do, it is part of the triad for prosperity. The fun part of the article is that the issue of bird strikes was raised over 10 years ago and poo-pooed.

        Thanks for the article V. I am forwarding it to my environmental; scientist son who denies it happens.

      • If we want to get out of the protracted depression that we are in, we need to grow the private sector economy. Growing government only rearranges the deck chairs while ignoring the fact that the bilge pumps are overloaded. The world is becoming more competitive but at the same time this opens more markets as the third world claws its way out of poverty. For our economy to grow, we need to produce real goods here as well as intellectual (information) property. We can not compete on wages. We must compete by being smarter and we must have some other edge. One of the big edges we have is an abundance of cheap energy be that coal, oil, gas, etc. There many necessary energy intensive industries that will come back to the US if we have cheap abundant energy. One of these is ethylene production which is a feedstock for plastics. Already, several new ethylene steam crackers on planned or under construction. We can also significantly improve our balance of trade by exporting the excess energy. Our energy reserves are like inventory in a company. In bad times, companies run down inventor converting these accumulated assets into cash.

        There are other things we should do to encourage the private sector. I would lower or eliminate corporate income tax and replace it with a fixed sales tax (not a vat). This taxes all goods whether manufactured in the US or outside the US. Hence it levels the playing field. I would allow a one time free repatriation of profits from overseas as long as these funds are invested in US based R&D or in capital equipment for increasing our manufacturing base.

        I would eliminate all subsidies/tax breaks for energy production. This would include all forms of alternate energy as well as conventional sources. I would eliminate mandates for alternate energy use. Let the market decide these things. I would continue to fund research into alternate, cleaner, more efficient, forms of energy. One area I would look at carefully is the nuclear industry. I would investigate the feasibility of LiF Thorium reactors. These have the potential of a much cleaner, safer source of nuclear energy without the problem of large amounts of waste or of proliferation of bomb making material. This would be a technology we could sell to the third world, thus moving them away from coal and skipping the oil/gas energy conversion all together.

        Finally we need to improve our regulator processes so that growth can be accomplished in a finite time. It should not take 10 years to site a new chemical plant or other facility. There are so many stupid things we do in the name of environmentalism that harm the economy. An example of that is the Rim fire timber near Yosemite. The logging companies still do not have clearance to remove the dead trees from federal lands. There are thousands of them. This timber must be harvested within a year or it is useless. We could create hundreds of jobs, generate millions of dollars for the economy and fund the replanting if the government would just make a timely decision.

        • The remains of the Mt. St. Helen’s timber still lay there. Never understood why there was any controversy using it. “Science” could have been satisfied with a sample.

        • I’m always liked the idea of getting rid of income taxes by raising sales taxes-the only argument I’ve ever heard against this idea was causing an increase in black markets. But it seems like such a practical way to raise revenue without all the loop holes and expense and late fees and internal revenue audits, etc. that come with income taxes.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I like the idea of getting rid of the Federal Govt (as it is today), slimming it WAY down, eliminated 3/4’s of the need for Federal taxes, set a simple tax for everyone (say 5% to start). Let the States handle the EPA, education, tax collection, and most of the garbage that the Feds shove down our throats. We really don’t need them (the federal Govt), they need us to survive.

            • Slimming down the government is one of my goals as well. It starts by getting control of the runaway budget followed by bringing the government back in line with the Constitution. The above convention could be a start in that direction.

              In the past I have been dead set against a national sales tax. I remain steadfastly against a VAT as it entails too much paper work. One thing the income tax has going for it is that we know at the end of each year just how much the government stole. Sales taxes are insidious as one never knows how much in total is taken. Corporate taxes are essentially a sales tax as they are buried in the product sold. So replacing them with a national sales tax brings them out into the open for all to see. It also taxes imported goods so it is less attractive for companies to export jobs then import product. It also makes it more difficult for the government to tinker with the tax code to give their business friends a break. I am sure they will be creative and find a new path but in the interim we may get a break.

  7. gmanfortruth says:
    • Beats me-Personally I think they are using our first Black American President as a living martyr for their cause and they should be ashamed of themselves. I actually hoped it would help racial issues but the dems. seem determined to make it increase them.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Somehow, it seems that lots of Liberals thought that skin color would give him a pass on his ideology. They thought wrong and I think it has backfired on them. Now, not knowing what to do because their fantasies have been dashed, can only do one thing, cry racism. They haven’t figured out that most of us don’t care if they call us racists, because we know the truth, that is, they are the true racists and it can be easily proven 🙂

  8. gmanfortruth says:


    More LIES from the Left. Geez, I’m believing that Liberalism may really be a disease.

  9. gmanfortruth says:


    Funny, short video , with, of course another Democrap LYING through her teeth (Pelosi). LOL, What a joke the Liberals have become and the train hasn’t even started to slow down during this epic crash.

  10. gmanfortruth says:
  11. ‘How Dare They’: Read the Letter From UK School That Left Parents ‘Shocked’ and Outraged
    Nov. 22, 2013 5:45pm Jason Howerton


    A school in England is facing backlash after it sent a letter to parents threatening to add a “racial discrimination note” to the file of any student who failed to attend a workshop about Islam. The note, the letter explained, would “remain on this file throughout their school career.”

    Some of the students are as young as 8-years-old.
    Schools Threatens to Brand Children as Racist if They Miss Muslim Workshop

    The Littleton Green Community School

    The Littleton Green Community School in Staffordshire, England, quickly retracted the threat after outraged parents and the local council objected.

    “I was shocked by the letter. To be told my kids have got to attend this workshop is disgusting,” Tracy Ward, a mother of four, told the Telegraph. “Everyone should have a choice, but that’s my opinion and I don’t want a stain on my kids’ record as a result…”

    Another parent, 55-year-old Gillian Claridge, said parents were told they have to pay for the trip as well, which was “just a kick in the teeth.”

    “How dare they threaten to brand the children racist at such a young age. It’s going to make them feel like little criminals,” the parent added.

    The Telegraph provides the original Nov. 20 letter sent by the school:

    Dear Parent/Carer,

    As part of the National Religious Education Curriculum together with the multicultural community in which we live, it is a statutory requirement for Primary School aged children to experience and learn about different cultures.
    The workshop is at Staffordshire University and will give your child the opportunity to explore other religions.

    Children will be looking at religious artefacts similar to those that would be on display in a museum. they will not be partaking in any religious practices.

    Refusal to allow your child to attend this trip will result in a Racial Discrimination note being attached to your child’s education record, which will remain on this file throughout their school career.

    As such our expectations are that all children in years 4 and 6 attend school on Wednesday 27th November to take part in this trip.

    All absences on this day will be investigated for their credibility and will only be sanctioned witha GP sick note.

    If you would like to discuss this further please contact our RE Coordinator, Mrs Edmonds.

    Outrage quickly ensued, causing school officials to change their tune.

    A Staffordshire County Council spokesperson told the Telegraph that “it is important for children to find out more about different cultures” but “parents also have a right to withdraw their children from religious activities.”

    “Clearly it is not appropriate for comments about racial discrimination to be made in these circumstances,” the spokesperson said.


    Reminds me of our school system’s attacks against our children -in order to try and limit gun rights. Funny how over 200 years of religious freedom in this country didn’t lead to this type of crap. But the progressive’s concentrating on racism and discrimination has.

    • This in a country that once rounded up dissenters from the official church.

    • ” As part of the National Religious Education Curriculum together with the multicultural community in which we live, it is a statutory requirement for Primary School aged children to experience and learn about different cultures. The workshop is at Staffordshire University and will give your child the opportunity to explore other religions.”

      ” opportunity to explore other religions” is probably an overall good thing.

      The issue is… ” a statutory requirement for Primary School aged children to experience and learn about different cultures. ”

      Operative word: “requirement” …which is backed with a threat of …

      ” a “racial discrimination note” to the file of any student who failed to attend a workshop about Islam.” … that would… “remain on this file throughout their school career.”

      ” Schools Threatens to Brand Children (“as young as 8-years-old”) as Racist if They Miss Muslim Workshop ”

      Translation: Learn Islam(and others?) or else be black-listed.

      It seeks to pressure/push learning, as well as a particular belief. The answer is to promote and offer freely instead of applying pressure to do so.

      If an educational institution decides that exploring religion is a good thing to teach children, they should facilitate the environment and offer it freely and openly, not push it and threaten to gossip/blacklist via school records. Pushing it creates conflict.

      Simply schedule a class, or set of classes that teach the influence of religion on human history and culture or something interesting and fun with field trips, etc. Send an explanation/description to parents offering sign ups to a class where their children will learn of the influence of religion on human history and culture, and how you will have to define a dozen or more religions, etc. Provide an outline of the class and (if it makes you feel better)expressed written consent form for the parent to fill out confirming they indeed do want their child to learn this.

      Very very simple.

      • The point in my mind BL, is not that they don’t know the proper way to teach-it’s that the proper way might will not achieve their objective, which is to force people to accept whatever their pushing, either out of true acceptance or fear of speaking against it.

        • And yes I see it-I hate that word!!

        • I agree, which is why I try to offer a solution in the interest of a win/win, as to eliminate any one sided agenda.

          If it is done in a way where the instructor/speaker/whatever presents it from an objective/neutral position, and it is strictly voluntary, then there can be no real ‘agenda’ other than promoting learning about human culture.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Question is….were Moslems threatened with the same punishment or exempted from attending.

  12. What happened to having a discussion on the original posting of this COS letter? Why do discussions always devolve into postings of how crazy the left is? We ALL know that they’re crazy, and if we want to read those things, there are plenty of websites to go check those things out. I used to love coming to this site, because PRODUCTIVE discussion and ideas were presented here, in a very friendly manner. I check in from time to time to see if its gotten back to that, but it still hasn’t. Let’s have useful discussions, not meaningless trivial crap that fox, msm,et al blabber on about!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I agree Matt, that’s why I brought it up and hope it takes us into the week. This could be the beginning of something good, or more of nothing. It may also be the last best chance to get control of the Federal Govt., they are way out of control at this point. All 3 branches have been perverted into something other than what they were intended to be.

    • Help us out, get it started.

  13. gmanfortruth says:
  14. “This is not the sort of convention that has the power to propose a new Constitution or to change the Constitution. The only thing an Article 5 convention can do is to propose an idea for how to fix a broken system” Not really understanding this comment. I get that they can’t just go in there and rewrite the whole Constitution-but what exactly can they do?

    A Convention of states is not a Constitutional Convention


    In his recent article, Dr. Miguel Faria responded to Bill Ferguson’s column which called for a Constitutional Convention to fix our fundamentally broken government. Faria is a patriot and is correct in his assertion that a Constitutional Convention to set things right is a bad idea. I share his love of freedom, respect for the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. However, the procedure which has recently gained much media attention after being proposed in Mark Levin’s book “The Liberty Amendments” is a Convention of States, not a Constitutional Convention.

    A Convention of States is simply one of the two methods in Article 5 of our Constitution for proposing and ratifying amendments. This is not the sort of convention that has the power to propose a new Constitution or to change the Constitution. The only thing an Article 5 convention can do is to propose an idea for how to fix a broken system — a system that has become corrupted by a Congress that can’t function.

    When the framers wrote the first draft of the Constitution its provision for amending the Constitution said Congress had the power to propose amendments to the Constitution. George Mason expressed opposition to the provisions limiting the power to propose amendments to Congress. According to the convention records, Mason thought that “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

    A second path

    If Congress is the problem then we can’t count on Congress to propose the reforms necessary to fix it. Understanding this problem, the framers quickly changed the draft of the Constitution to include the essential backup to protect the liberty and democracy they were creating. The essential backup was the state legislatures. What the framers did in Article 5 was to create a second path to amending the Constitution.

    Article 5 of the Constitution 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.”

    Runaway convention idea

    Professor Rob Natelson is one of America’s best known constitutional scholars and an expert on Article 5. He writes that the runaway convention scenario was conjured up in the 19th century to dissuade state lawmakers from bypassing Congress through the state application and convention process. He also confirms through a fact based argument that there are far more political and legal constraints on a runaway convention than on a runaway Congress.

    Rather than calling a convention for a particular amendment, Citizens for Self-Governance has launched the Convention of the States Project to urge state legislatures to properly use Article 5 to call a convention for a particular subject — reducing the power of Washington, D.C.

    Balanced budget?

    It is important to note that a convention for a particular amendment (e.g. a Balanced Budget Amendment) would be limited to that single idea. Requiring a balanced budget is a great idea, however Congress could comply with a Balanced Budget Amendment by simply raising taxes. We need spending restraints as well. We need restraints on taxation. We need prohibitions against improper federal regulation. We need to stop unfunded mandates.

    To quote Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Harvard: “We should strongly support state legislatures around the country creating the movement necessary to hold this Article 5 Convention. We have to recognize that Uncle Sam has an addiction. He is a drunk. We have to organize an intervention to give him a chance to begin to legislate in a way we can be proud of. We need our state legislatures to do their job and their job is to stand up and organize the political force necessary to take on the corruption that is preventing our Congress from functioning.”

    Partisan issue?

    This is not a partisan issue. Washington, D.C., will never voluntarily relinquish meaningful power — no matter who is elected. The only rational conclusion is this: unless some political force outside of Washington, D.C., intervenes, the federal government will continue to bankrupt this nation, embezzle the legitimate authority of the states and destroy the liberty of the people. Rather than securing the blessings of liberty for future generations, Washington is on a path that will enslave our children and grandchildren to the debts of the past.

    Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/10/27/2740563/a-convention-of-states-is-not.html#storylink=cpy

    • I think a convention of states is worth a try. If the product is not good, the states can still refuse to ratify the results. One fear I have is that there will be a push to put the best legal minds in the convention. Thus we would get academics, lawyers, and politicians. This convention needs to represent the all of the people. We need some of the above for their expertise in law but we also need philosophers, ranchers, farmers, business men, and ordinary citizens. We need people with the awareness that the founders had in the faults of mankind.

      I would not be in favor of what some call positive amendments, i.e. what government must do for people. The constitution should reflect the limitations of government.

      Yes the states should limit the scope of the convention in their call for it.

  15. Col., can you comment on the Iranian deal? It seems that we gained very little and laid the grounds for a bigger problem in the future.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    BEFORE you get involved in a movement for a Convention it would be wise to make sure you have 3/4 of the State legislatures in agreement.

    A GENERAL call for a convention is a useless exercise and would probably collapse under the weight of to many proposals.

    Rob Natelson outlined a better approach, which I shared here before.

    Develop specific proposals or narrow the focus of the Convention, like on the issue of taxes passed that are not in support of programs AUTHORIZED elsewhere. This would kill the ACA, for example.

    • For the call to be acted on requires 2/3 of the state legislatures so there will already be substantial agreement. The trick is to get the call carefully worded and have the calling states specify specifically what the topics are to be. Each state can then put conditions on the delegates as to what authority they have. The signers of the declaration needed authority from their states to do so.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Since you need 3/4 to pass any amendment, you should have 3/4 on board, that is with Legislatures that are NOT controlled by Progressives or other STATISTS.

        Yes, the petitions should be narrowed in focus so the States can put the issue of “Runaway Convention” to bed before it can gain momentum.

        I must remind you though, that those men who Created the New Constitution also had “narrow instructions” but decided to go bigger.

        But they would not have succeeded if not for general disaffection for the Articles of Confederation, and I think a great deference given to many of those men who were in attendance.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      BEFORE you get involved in a movement for a Convention it would be wise to make sure you have 3/4 of the State legislatures in agreement.

      JAC, Why? This will never happen in this political environment. Claiming ” Before” is just an xcuse to do nothing. What other movements are there?

      It’s something, or what we have. Sometimes I think you just want to keep what we have.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Actually it is much closer than you think. That is if you consider R’s as friendly to your cause.

        WHY? Because that is how many are needed to APPROVE any Amendment.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          How do you achieve an Amendment unless you have a Convention? I’m thinking we may have a misunderstanding, could you clarify your sentence beginning with “BEFORE” ?

  17. Point of personal pride Mr. Chairman.

    Video of our 40th wedding anniversary with apologies to Sonny and Cher. The handsome little folk are two of the grandkids. The handsome younger people are sons and daughters in law.


    • Well if that didn’t put a smile on my face first thing this morning……! That just blew my mental picture of you! You’re the life of the party type..and Mrs. T. too, Congratulations to the happy couple..and many more. Good looking grandkids to boot!

      what was that Charlie moans about fugazy names….. 😉

      • There actually have been scientific studies that show conservatives are happier than their counterparts. As an “almost” shrink, I always thought it because we accept human nature and foibles and can put them aside from time to time and go out to smell the avocados. They can’t. They take life wayyyyyyy too seriously.

        Always thought that we were better suited for the “serenity” prayer .

        “Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

        • I agree. I’ve also read where conservatives have also had to think through and fight the the fog of the liberal media – even when it wasn’t so obvious the media have leaned left. That’s why the outrage over “Faux News” – never have the left even heard another viewpoint!

    • Looking good in that Tux-40 years that’s a biggy and deserves a celebration-Love the song choice 🙂 And the grandkids-little Angel faces, the both of them.

    • Love it! That was awesome! Congratulations – what a fun celebration!

  18. gmanfortruth says:

    Any ideas, from both sides of the spectrum, on what can be discussed at a convention of this nature? I can think of a lot of things I would “take away” from the Feds.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Another thing. If agreements are made, how can they be forced upon the Federal Govt?

      • I can’t really answer these questions.-but I’ve always felt the only real way to fix the system was through the State powers. So I’m for trying before our Federal government figures out away to get rid of those powers.

    • I think that long before I thought it would come to pass, we are at the point where the Feds can pretty well do what they want to do with impunity.

      We have just watched a President of the United States, not in wartime with the exigencies that implies, make up the law as he goes along. Worst part, there are a few “Cicero’s” out there calling him on it but not enough. I understand the fall of the Roman Republic much better now that I seem to be living through a replay. I hear excuse after excuse from their and our side. I am appalled.

      My son warned me about the neo-cons and I regret I did not take him seriously. I met some of these folks back in the ’60’s. they were still democrats but becoming increasingly upset over the pro communist stance taken in that party. We, welcomed them as allies in the fight against Communism and that includes people like Bill Buckley and Ron Reagan but did not realize their Socialist, Progressive, Wilsonian roots were not ever going to be subject to change. They achieved conservative “cover” and became very influential in the party.

      The “obstructionists” on the Republican side in the Senate have “forced” the democrats to take the radical step of cancelling 200 plus years of precedent, all for the common good of course. Sort of reminds one of the Senate under Augustus does it not? My friends here, Charlie, Buck, Todd and Matt seem to really not think it important at all. The media seems to think that it is time to change those old fuddy duddy rules to get things done!

      One more Supreme Court appointment, just one more, undoes it all.

      I would propose that as a first step, lifetime appointments be banned. A period, twelve years I think, would be appropriate and it should apply to ALL judges, elected or appointed as well as all elected officials. Second step, The Department of Education should be dissolved or, at the very least, any attempt at devising curricula on a national level (propaganda) should be prohibited. A convention of states could simply declare they will not adhere to any such curricula proposed or imposed. By the way, notice how that proposed curricula has actually become an imposed one? People forget that the Bush reforms in education were also the Kennedy reforms. many leftists would join us on this one. The teachers howl now about impositions on them not realizing what is yet to come.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I think a lot of our tax burden can be stopped with some serious changes. The TSA, DHS, NSA, IRS etc., can all be illuminated. All the things they do can be done locally, at a fraction of the cost. The one thing that the States can do is to collect all Federal taxes and with hold them until the demands of the states are met. The Feds won’t, They will then basically attacking the people for “their” money. The DHS didn’t buy all them bullits and guns to collect dust, they bought them to use against “their” enemy. That enemy folks, could be you :surprise:

    • I totally agree. I can pretty much figure what each SUFA regular..guys or girls will say. We shall see.

    • If it becomes habitual and is required, it is a problem. Anyone can sneak a peek from time to time for quick titillation but if you find yourself making excuses to use the computer constantly, you might as well have a girlfriend on the side. “South Park” has actually dealt with this from time to time in a raunchy but very accurate way.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Depending on the religion, it may be considered cheating. It also can rekindle a marriage when both members are bored with each other in bed. Can an Atheist actually cheat, in the terms of how an Atheist would think. Muslim’s have more than one wife, as do other religions. I also agree with SK, moderation, just like alcohol and gambling.

    • ” First things first: if you’re married and you look at porn, you are cheating. Period.”
      OK, first thing is this applies only to him, the author. Apparently to him viewing porn is tied to thoughts of infidelity. I wonder how he functions at the beach or anywhere there are scantily clad cheerleaders around?

      ” From a Christian perspective, this can’t be debated. Christ laid it out very clearly: if you lust after another woman, you have committed adultery.”
      Well, when the Ten Commandments were written, it was common to have more than one wife, so maybe it was OK to lust for that single woman (12 or 13) milking a goat? And that’s how you met your fourth wife….The point of it is it’s an impossible standard to meet & only you & God know how you score. What is important is to try & strive to be the best person you can be. Would this same author say the same about all the women who have read “50 Shades of Gray?” Is it only a “sin” if pictures are provided? If a woman has a rape fantasy, can she ever be raped or did she provoke it? Total BullDookey!

      ” When we look at porn we are choosing to succumb to that lust; we are indulging it, fertilizing it, giving it respite in our minds.”

      OK, I can agree to some of this logic. Too much oxygen is bad. Too much of most things are unhealthy. It all in how/why you do or use something. It could add spice to a marriage. It could destroy a marriage. And it’s all CHARLIE’S FAULT! Modern sexual fantasies can be traced to the legend of “Charlie Stallion”! A man’s man who stirred the fires of countless
      ladies, only to leave them with cold ashes to remember. Poor Charlie was every woman’s dream during the seduction, foreplay, and right up to that final moment of ecstasy when………
      he developed a cramp or “Charlie Horse” and left them hanging… A sad reality, no man or woman can ever compete with a fantasy. In an imaginary world, your lover is perfect, never sneezing at the wrong moment or failing you in any way desired.

      Another point to ponder, many people work hard to make themselves attractive. If a woman wears tight clothes outside the home, is she “cheating” on her husband by trying to be attractive to other men? My wife dresses well & is attractive….Should I insist she dress plainly and not show any curves? She works out & works hard to be fit. She takes pride in her looks and I am proud to have her as my wife. We both dress as we choose, read & watch what we like. If we fall short of others standards, that’s their problem. Because if porn is a sin, that is only where it starts. It will not end with no bikinis, cheerleaders or romance novels. It will always be an individual choice. What is right/wrong/sin….

    • I am not so sure it is about all that. Forget about rules and technicality of whether or not it is ‘cheating’…

      How does your wife feel about it?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        My girlfriend (I was divorced in ’95, won’t go down that road again) likes it and even requests it sometimes. It makes for some “let’s try that” moments that keeps things interesting 🙂

        • Sure,..why not?

          When you are a couple, it is a union, a sharing and/or reciprocal looking out for each other’s happiness(..ideally anyway).

          If you both simply focus on love, honor and respect, and what makes each other happy, you shouldn’t have to worry about all that other stuff. It will fall into place on it’s own.

          If porn enriches your ‘sharing’, how does ‘cheating’ apply?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Cheating applies to certain religions, mainly. Porn, like gambling, are sins to many. Everyone thinks different, to each his own 🙂

            • I am not so sure it is about religion per se’, although it all kinda ties in together, …but more so about human nature. An atheist doesn’t like coming home to catching their spouse in bed with another person any more than a Baptist, Jew, or Muslim, Satanist, etc.

              When you are with someone, in a relationship, married, whatever you wanna call it, ultimately it is about something mutual, centered around what you share. If you are not nurturing that, it is going to eventually go to shit, regardless of whatever religious, social, or legal standards/regulations you attach to it.

              As far as sin goes, I think cheating is another example to demonstrate the nature of sin and subsequent ramifications. First goes your marriage, then your relationship as a family, your kids suffer, you loose your house and all the things you worked for, etc…..And for what? Lust? Temporary self-oriented gratification? Is it worth it?

              I don’t think it is so much things like porn or gambling that is necessarily the sin, but more about what you do with it and why.

              Did you go to the track and blow five thousand dollars of grocery money and mortgage payments, thus neglecting the needs of your wife while she sat home worried about you? …Or did you go there with your wife on a fun weekend getaway kinda thing, using your Christmas bonus money?

              What is the sin really about?

    • Sorry, this is nonsense.

      “Cheating” is determined by the couple’s unique rules. What is cheating in one relationship is fine in another and even meritorious in another still.

      This of it this way: when you become a couple, you agree on the terms of your relationship.

      If a man starts dating a woman but, upfront, states “I am seeing other women, and intend to continue to do so,” is it fair to say that he “cheated” when she later catches him in bed with another woman? Of course not. Because she accepted a relationship with terms where other relationships were allowed. She should have insisted on exclusivity or refused to join the relationship, but she has no right to cry foul.

      If you are a couple (or group!!) with another person and have set terms making it clear that pornography consumption is not acceptable, then the consumption of said pornography is “cheating.” If you have not agreed to any such terms, then it is not cheating.

      To make a blanket statement that “porn is cheating” as if such a thing were universally applicable to all relationships is absurd.

  19. gmanfortruth says:

    Buck, Mathius, What would like to see addressed in a Convention of States?

    • What would like to see addressed in a Convention of States?

      “Why do states still exist? Why bother?”

      “Should Rhode Island be forced to merge with some of its neighbors? I mean, come on, there’s a single ranch in Texas that is bigger than your entire state. You’re a joke.”

      “Should Wyoming be forced to merge with some of its neighbors, too? I mean, there’s about 1/2 million people in the entire state, that’s smaller than most major cities.”

      “Currently, there are 50 states. Capitals are annoying to memorize because they aren’t often the biggest city. How many of you will be willing to fix this issue. The capital of California should be LA. The capital of New York should be NYC. Let’s fix this!”

      “There are four states whose capitals start with the same letter as the state name. First one to name them all gets an extra electoral vote until 2020.”

      “What’s with the ‘official state ___’ nonsense? Seriously, why do you have an official state insect? What is that about? Can we please stop doing that?”

      (The previous question does not apply to Oklahoma’s official state song).

      “Who would win in a war between North and South Carolina? North and South Dakota? West and ‘regular’ Virginia?”

      “For that matter, why isn’t ‘Virginia’ called ‘East Virginia’?”

      “While we’re on the subject, can we rename all ‘New’ states to just drop the ‘New’? There’s no reason for this. Except ‘New Mexico’ because calling it ‘Mexico’ would just be confusing.”

      “Say ‘Aye’ if you’re in favor annexing Canada. Whose going to stop us? The Mounties?”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Leave Canada alone, we have enough problems of our own 🙂

        Why do we have people (Liberals) who think they know what I need and don’t need?

        Why are people likely to die because they have become collateral damage from a law that is a prime example of Liberals telling me what I need and what I don’t. I really don’t need maternity coverage, ever.

        When will the States join together and tell the feds to shove their laws up their……:) (you get the point).

        Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family Mathius! I hope you have a wonderful holiday, it’s always been mt favorite 🙂

        • This year, I get a special 2-in-1: it’s Thanksgiving AND Hanukkah. This won’t happen again for ~80,000 years.

          Oh, and by the way, I get to work that day, too.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Happy Hanukkah as well. Bummer on the work thing, must suck to work for a lousy company (join a union,:) )

            • The lousiness of the company isn’t really the issue. The issue is that we work in multiple countries and they haven’t yet given up the pretense that America is the only country that matters. As such, the stock exchanges for the rest of the planet are still open and trading.

              Thus, someone needs to be here to keep the lights on and the gears turning.

              Meanwhile, you never answered my questions for the states.. I’d like to hear your responses.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m sure you know, it’s the States that make up the UNION. Many large nations have states, provinces etc. Canada, Japan, Great Britain, Netherlands to name a few. We were never, as a union, to have a centralized govt, but it seems to have devolved to that. So, yes, I’m glad we have States (it makes for great sports rivalries). Now it’s time to shut down the feds and put them back to where they should be, OUT of all of our lives, for the most part 🙂

              • And yet you continue to remain completely silent on who would win in a fight between North and South Carolina.. interesting..

              • Come on Mathius, you know full well that the North always wins…

                I’m more interested in your question on West vs. “East” Virginia…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                South Carolina and West Va would whoop ass, that better 🙂

          • I think Matt would be very happy with a parliamentary system. I always wondered if the “one man, one vote” court cases used against the states and even municipalities like NY were designed to eventually destroy our form of government. Certainly, one can see how “unfair” it is for each piddling state like Wyoming to have two Senators when it is a fraction of the size of California.

            The same was true in States like NY where the rural upstate counties had equal representation with Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Nassau and Suffolk. This was ruled “unconstitutional” in the “70’s despite the fact it was set up like the Federal system. NY City used to have Council seats “at large” until that too was knocked down.

            Of course with counties (like states) acting as a brake on Executive overreach, things like Cuomo Junior’s firearms ban would never have happened. Somehow, methinks the forefathers figured this one out and the courts decided it was old fashioned and stood in the way of progress to say the least.

            Bet that, without too much effort you could launch a drive for a new Constitutional Amendment to go one man one Vote in the Senate. Probably get oodles of money from Bloomberg, Soros and Gates.The dummies would back it too.

            If you think that impossible, remember that the Senate has been altered before.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Good article that may explain many things. I can relate, but not for reasons in the article, I find myself angry at times, not always knowing why.

  21. gmanfortruth says:
  22. A Convention of States? I’m all for it! Start with the Bill of Rights & reassert some things like what is reasonable or unreasonable search & seizure? States rights & individual rights, eminent domain, etc. I think one of the biggest problems with our government today is it works too well & they are able to pass too many laws & regulations… It was intended to be dysfunctional and damned near impossible to accomplish anything thru…

  23. gmanfortruth says:


    I will bring this up in another thread, but the lengthy video is damning to the “official” govt story. Bush was a liar too! He was just better at it 😆

    • Absolute, total, complete crap.

      Whenever more than two people know something, it is not a secret anymore. I assume that a conspiracy of two brought the towers down. Back to earlier paranoia, I assume that the “phone company workers” in the building over the past 40 years were not stringing phone wire but rather det. cord in the twin towers. No doubt it set off the thermite when Mr. X pushed the big button.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        UMMM, It’s not really a secret anymore, now is it. Can you explain Tower 7? The laws of physics can’t, so your view should be interesting, 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          To be honest SK, I equate this event and the “science” the same as Climate change. Govt scientists vs. non-government scientists. I know who I DON’T trust, how about you?

        • Is Tower 7 the one where Mayor Guilliani had his HQ? If so, they had several hundred thousand gallons of emergency fuel oil stored on an upper floor. Once that was breached, all bets are off. Ya’know, you don’t have to melt steel, just soften it enough so it looses all load bearing capability. Done a couple of fire damaged buildings in my time, mostly masonry structures with wood joists. In a few instances have run across steel I beams spanning an extra wide doorway between bearing walls and have seen them droop 6 to 8 inches in the center. Only reason they did not give way was that the load had burnt away first and they ere on the top floor.

          • Like you SK, I am not a conspiracy believer. Those buildings were huge. It would take months for a crew to rig the building with the explosive and with detonator cables. All the installers would need to know what they were doing as this would not be a normal communications or electrical installation. All the installers would need to keep the secret which is hard to believe. They would also have to lie to any curious onlookers that would question what they were doing.

            On the fateful day, the trigger wiring would have to remain intact during the fire to initiate the collapse. The collapse starts near the impact floor at the hottest part of the fire. The triggering panel would need to be blocks away to provide safety for the operator. It is too much to believe that all of this could have happened without a glitch in the middle of a raging inferno.

            There was lots of fuel for the fire. Not only was there the jet fuel but also the aluminum from the plane which can burn intensely. The fuel flowed down the central service column which would have acted like a chimney and created a tremendous updraft to feed the fire. So the fire would have been the hottest near the central support system.

            I did not look at the current video as what I saw before looked to me like a floor by floor internal collapse (pancaking of the floors) with the outer panel pealing away as they lost their connection to the central support structure. The impact of the upper structure dropping on a floor would send tremendous shock waves through the structure at the speed of sound. I would expect any concrete to virtually explode from the shock waves since it is brittle.

            SK is correct, steel losses its strength when heated. It does not need to melt for collapse to occur. In the ’60s, Mayor Daley’s new McCormick Place Convention center in Chicago burned down. The roof, which was supported by steel beams, collapsed. Firemen I have talked to are more leery of steel frame buildings collapsing than wood frame ones.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Well Fellows, I’m not a scientist by any stretch. I do know a little about blowing things up. As I see this issue, we have the NIST report (govt), we have eye witnesses, we have lots of professionals (in the video) and we have the FIRST ever steel framed skyscraper collapse because of fire. It wasn’t a partial collapse, like one may expect from fire damage, it was a symmetrical collapse, that the authorities knew was going to happen. Even the BBC reported that it had collapsed, all the while it was still standing behind the reporter in the window.

              It’s no big deal if ya’ll believe the government story, most people do. For me and many others, there are too many holes (like the 7 hijackers who were later found to be alive). Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Why did so many big companies make a fortune on “Put Options” because of 911? Far too many questions left unanswered. They will never get answered and the govt will continue to LIE to all of us so that a few can be enriched.

              Happy Thanksgiving 🙂

    • Gman is correct. It was controlled demolition that actually brought the buildings down.

      ” 18 – I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord. ”

  24. gmanfortruth says:
  25. gmanfortruth says:

    I hope everyone is getting ready for their Thanksgiving Day festivities. Things are up in the air in these parts as a winter storm takes aim at us once again. TWC is saying 8-12 inches by Thursday. That will affect travel for sure.

  26. Liberalism IS a mental disorder. Always heard that slogan – I now finally believe it. There is something inherently wrong with them and their brain.


  27. gmanfortruth says:


    For those with children, you might want to read this. WTH is our country turning into?

    Our good friend Judy is not happy at all with Obamacare, hopefully she will share her story when she isn’t spitting on pictures of Obama. 😦

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I am hereby coining a new term, “Victim of Socialism” or VOS for short. This should tell the story when Obamacare fails somebody, miserably!

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    Anyone want to take a shot on why this proposed law is a total waste of time and tax dollars?

  29. gmanfortruth says:

    Don’t need Voter ID, do we?

    PJ Media’s David Steinberg reports that a series of “precise, brilliant, secretive, and illegal decisions” by Obamacare authors has led strictly to the creation of 50 unbeatable election tools.

    He writes: “Since the passage of Obamacare, all fifty state Medicaid agencies have been forced to create a new standalone database that contains nothing besides the contact information of Medicaid applicants who used Healthcare.gov.”

    Wait, there’s more. Some of the databases mail out voter registration forms automatically. You can’t refuse them, and no verification process occurs before these forms are mailed–whether you’re a U.S. citizen in the states or a terrorist in Pakistan.

    Add to this the fact that Democrat-controlled groups like Organizing for Action and malevolent figures like Chris Tarango also have access to these databases. It’s an alarming development.

    Get the full story here, and be sure to forward this email to your friends. Part two of this article will be posted after the Thanksgiving holiday.

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    OUCH! This is nuts. What have we become that causing pain upon others is now fun?

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Well, I’m off on road trip until Sunday.

    Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. I know some of ya are experiencing that little weather event we in the Rockies call snow showers. Stay warm and safe.

    Best to all.


%d bloggers like this: